Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not pre- viously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Regent's Canal and Dock Company (Warwick Canals Purchase) Bill.

Bill committed.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Mersey Tunnel Bill [Lords.]

Bill to be read a Second time.

RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILLS,

Resolved, "That is is expedient that the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill and the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."

Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Linlithgow, in the room of James Kidd, esquire, deceased.—[Sir George Hennessy.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY.

SERVICE AGREEMENTS, GRIMSBY.

Mr. B. SMITH: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether officers of his Department examine and supervise contracts of service made between owners and crews of trawling vessels at the port of Grimsby; if so, whether these contracts contain particulars of charges for food, drinking-water and other commodities which the owners deduct from the men's earnings at the end of each trip; whether the prices charged are sanctioned as being fair and reasonable; and, if not, what steps are taken to protect the fishermen against unjust stoppages?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): Agreements with the crews of Grimsby trawlers are not examined by any Board of Trade officer before they are signed. These agreements do not normally contain particulars of charges to he made for stores. Fishermen have the right to appeal to the Board of Trade Superintendent on any question of earnings or cost of provisions, and that right is frequently exercised.

Mr. B. SMITH: May I ask whether the provisions of the Truck Act are regarded by any authority, and, if so, by what body?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the agreements entered into by the fishermen and owners of vessels are in accordance with the award of Mr. Justice Fry, 25 years ago, and that if the men have any complaint whatever as regards their settling bills the Board of Trade officials at Grimsby are most courteous in taking the case up and thoroughly investigating
it; and that no complaints have been sent to me as Member for the constituency?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, whereas the majority of boat owners treat their men well, and the officials are certainly helpful, yet, owing to the slackness in the fishing trade, the men are afraid to complain because of the fear that they will not he signed on again, and will he instruct his officials to investigate thoroughly the position in order to see that there is no ground for these complaints in the case of a certain minority?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have no reason to believe that the circumstances are other than those stated by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), and, as the fishermen frequently exercise their rights, the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) does not arise.

Mr. SMITH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the ordinary articles of a seagoing ship drinking water is supplied free, whereas in a fishing smack they have to pay for their drinking water?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman oblige me and at the same time satisfy the conscience of the hon. Member for Grimsby, by instructing his officials to look into the matter, as the men are honestly afraid to complain?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is my hon. Friend aware that the alleged charge for drinking water is a charge that is made by the railway company for putting it on board the vessels, and that it is charged up against the expenses of the vessel in the same way as other charges are put on the list; and that the sum distributed among the share fishermen is the amount that is left after these expenses have been met?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to be giving information to the House.

NEW DOCK SCHEME, GRIMSBY.

Mr. B. SMITH: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can communicate to the House the result of his inquiry into the possibility of the London
and North Eastern Railway Company proceeding with the work of constructing a new fish dock at Grimsby?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I am informed by the railway company that, recognising that the accommodation for fish traffic at Grimsby was capable of improvement, they caused plans to be prepared for the provision of a new dock. The estimate of the cost, however, proved so high in relation to the probable financial return that the company were unable to see their way to proceed with the work, and their attitude towards the scheme has not altered in the interval.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the railway company, who are the owners of these docks, offered to spend £1,050,000, provided the Unemployment Grants Committee made a grant of £200,000 to cover the cost occasioned by the Government of the day stopping work in 1914, when it could have been done for £500,000?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not responsible for what went on in 1914.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would not the sum of £200,000 build a very good fish station at Tobermory?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is it not the fact that more fish are landed at Grimsby in one day than in 10 years at Tobermory?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is so full of information that he is depriving his colleagues of getting any.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Mr. HANNON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will issue a statement showing the benefits derived by Great Britain from the operation of Empire preference between this country and each Dominion, Colony, and dependency, respectively?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I would point out that it is not possible to assess these benefits directly in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. I will, however, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate in
the OFFICIAL REPORT a table of figures giving certain particulars in respect of the Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa for the year 1925, which is the latest year for which the information is available.
Figures showing the amount of the preferential rebates in the case of imports from the United Kingdom into Colonies and Protectorates during 1926 were given in an answer by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the hon. Member for the Eastern division of Hull on 25th July last.

Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Member say in his general reply whether the benefits conferred on British trade by Imperial preference have been very substantial?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The total amount of the rebate is something over £12,000,000.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will the hon. Member also circulate a return showing the benefits conferred by this country on the Dominions, including indirect as well as direct preference.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am afraid that I can only answer the question on the Paper.

Following is the Table of figures:

The following Table shows in respect of the specified Dominions, for the year 1925 (the latest year for which complete particulars have been estimated for each country), the approximate value of the imports from the United Kingdom of goods subject to preference and the aggregate amount of the rebate on the duties chargeable on like imports from foreign countries:


Dominion.
Approximate value of Imports from the United Kingdom which were subject to Preference.
Aggregate amount of Preferential Rebate.



£
£


Canada
23,150,000
2,470,000


Australia
63,850,000
7,800,000


New Zealand
20,600,000
2,860,000


Union of South Africa.
8,850,000
375,000

STUFFED TEXTILE TOYS (EXPORTS TO GERMANY).

Mr. HANNON: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is
aware that, owing to the duty on stuffed textile toys having been raised by Germany from 20 marks per 100 kilos to 1,050 marks per 100 kilos, our trade in these articles with that country is being destroyed; that Germany has raised the duty on the plea that such toys are used as mascots and decorations, whereas in reality it is only in stuffed textile toys that we can successfully compete with that country; and whether he will make representations to the German Customs authorities in view of the fact that German goods of similar character have free access to our markets?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am aware of the change of classification to which my hon. Friend refers, and His Majesty's Embassy at Berlin have already been instructed to take the matter up with the German Government.

Mr. HANNON: Is not this a good example of the great advantage to this country of having bargaining power when dealing with other countries?

DUTIABLE MANUFACTURED GOODS.

Mr. CRAWFURD: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the values of the imports, exports, and re-exports of the various classes of manufactured goods which now are subject on import to safeguarding or other duties during the years 1924, 1925 and 1927?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am having a statement prepared, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL, REPORT as soon as it is ready.

Mr. CRAWFURD: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the official home prices of the various classes of manufactured goods now subject on import to safeguarding or other duties for the years 1924 and 1927, respectively?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I regret to say that it is not possible to supply the information, as there are no official home prices for any of these classes of goods.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Are we to assume that references by the right hon. Gentleman in speeches to a reduction of prices are to be disregarded?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The question asks for official prices. There is no such thing an official prices. If the hon. Member will
put clown a question as to what information the Department has on the question of prices, we may be able to give him certain information.

TIN MINES, CORNWALL.

Mr. KELLY: 34.
asked the Secretary for Mines what steps are being taken to bring about the opening of tin mines in Cornwall?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I do not understand what kind of steps the hon. Member has in mind, but I have no doubt that all tin mines will be worked which in the opinion of their owners can be worked profitably.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

LIGHTHOUSE SERVICE.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the whole cost of the lighthouse service is borne by shipowners, he will take steps to place the administration of this service upon a new basis, with a view to giving them an effective voice in its control?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Certain questions connected with the administration of the lighthouse service are being discussed with representatives of shipowners, and it would be desirable to await the outcome of those discussions before any statement is made on general policy.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the hon. Member say when the results are likely to be made known?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am afraid that I can give no indication at the moment.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members have been informed many times that these discussions have taken place, but that as yet we have never heard with what result?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Discussions are actually taking place at this moment.

Sir R. THOMAS: My point is that they have been taking place for years and that we have been promised replies; but have not had them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I think it is the case that representations have been made for many years. It is only in recent years that they have reached the discussion stage.

Sir R. THOMAS: I am glad to hear that a reformation has taken place since the hon. Member joined the Board of Trade.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask with whom negotiations are taking place and whether those employed in the lighthouse service are being consulted?

Mr. WILLIAMS: At the moment, the negotiations are between the representatives of the shipowners and those who have to administer the lighthouse services.

Sir R. THOMAS: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to undertake a review of the whole lighthouse and lightship service with a view to determining what lights have ceased to be of sufficient use to warrant their retention; and whether he will then consider abolishing such lights and devoting the funds so saved to increasing the efficiency of the lighthouse service elsewhere?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I understand that the three general lighthouse authorities have constantly under consideration the question whether certain lights need be retained for the protection of shipping, but I am prepared to arrange for an investigation in the case of any particular lights which are regarded as superfluous if a sufficient body of prima facie evidence in support of this view is supplied to me.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask whether this matter has been under consideration by the Joint Industrial Council for the lighthouse service?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The question as to what lights have ceased to be of sufficient use does not seem to me to be a matter for the Joint Industrial Council.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Member see that certain selfish shipowners do not secure the abolition of certain lights now badly needed by the smaller inshore craft?

TROPICS (CREWS' WELFARE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the President of the Board of
Trade if he is aware that in certain British ships trading to the Far East, and in consequence making passage through the Tropics, no awnings are provided to shade the crews' living quarters and no ice chests in order to keep their food fresh, with the result that the men are on salt provisions on the second day out; and whether he will consider bringing to the notice of shipowners the need of these means of adding to the comfort of the forecastle hands?

Mr. WILLIAMS: As the inquiries which have been made show that British ships trading to the Tropics are generally provided with ice and awnings, a general recommendation on the subject would appear to be unnecessary, and there is no power to apply compulsion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask what can be done in the case of those British ships which are not carrying out these obligations? Are there no powers at all to deal with them?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Our inquiry showed that the situation is more satisfactory than we thought, but, if the hon. and gallant Member has any particular case in mind, we shall be pleased to do what we can to investigate it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Member aware that I sent actual details of a case to the President of the Board of Trade, and does he not think that the fact that the majority of ships do carry out these obligations makes it all the more reasonable that something should be done against the minority who do not?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have not seen the communication of the hon. and gallant Member.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the hon. Member aware that there is no foundation for such a statement and will he ask the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) to name the shipowners who are guilty of such neglect?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS).

Mr. BARNES: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether ex-service men
are disqualified for appointment to a temporary commission in the Royal Army Medical Corps if they are in receipt of a disability award?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The fact that an ex-service man is in receipt of a disability award is not in itself a disqualification for appointment to a temporary commission in the Royal Army Medical Corps, but such cases have naturally to be considered very carefully in view both of the possibility of aggravating the disability and of the danger of the officer's breakdown in the performance of his duties.

BRITISH TROOPS, GERMANY (OFFENCES).

Mr. WALTER BAKER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a complaint by the German Minister for the occupied territories alleging that there had been no reduction in the cases of maltreatment or molestation of the population of the Rhineland by soldiers of the occupying force; whether any charges of maltreatment and molestation against British troops have been substantiated; and whether he will supply figures showing the number of complaints which have been proved to be well founded?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As regards the first part of the question, I have seen a copy of the communication to which no doubt the hon. Member refers, which fully recognises the action taken by the occupation authorities to punish any offences proved to have been committed by the troops against the civil population. As regards the second and third parts of the question, there were in 1926, 15 convictions by court-martial on charges such as theft, assault and creating a disturbance, in 1927, 14, and in 1928, up to date, none. It must be remembered that in Germany even trivial cases, which in this country would normally be disposed of by the Civil Courts, are dealt with by court-martial, and having regard to the conditions under which the troops are serving there, the figures do not, I think, show any abnormal incidence of offences of this nature.

ORDNANCE FACTORIES (DISCHARGES).

Mr. KELLY: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of pensionable men who were discharged from the
ordnance factories before they reached the age of 60 years, during 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The numbers of pensionable men who were retired or discharged from the ordnance factories, including Waltham and Enfield, before reaching the age of 60 years during the years, 1925, 1926 and 1927 were two, seven and two, respectively. Of these nine received pensions, one a gratuity, and in one case the man's service terminated through his breach of agreement during the general strike.

TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (INCOME TAX).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the considerable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Territorial officers in the discharge of their official duties; and whether arrangements can be made with the Treasury with a view to the allowance of such expenses as a deduction from the Income Tax returns of these officers?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON- EVANS: During the period of annual training an officer of the Territorial Army is paid at the same rate as a Regular officer of corresponding rank, and from this pay a flat-rate deduction of £7 10s. is allowed for uniform expenses before any charge of Income Tax is made. He receives also certain untaxed allowances. I understand it would be contrary to the general principles of the Income Tax Acts to grant any further relief from Income Tax, such as my hon. Friend suggests.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that businesses are allowed to deduct any necessary expenses in connection with their businesses; and, surely, it would be only fair if these offices who sacrifice so much voluntarily, were allowed to deduct any expenses incurred by them in connection with their duties, from their Income Tax returns as out-of-pocket expenses?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope the hon. Member will put that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no power to deal with the matter.

Mr. HANNON: Would not my right hon. Friend, as Secretary of State for
War, who is concerned with the welfare of the men doing this voluntary work, himself make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The representations I have already made have produced a reduction of £7 10s. in regard to uniform expenses. That is as far as I can go. My hon. Friend was asking me a technical question relating to the Income Tax Act. As to that I know nothing, and must refer him to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

GORDON HIGHLANDERS (T. WYPER, GLASGOW).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 15.
asked the
Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Thomas Wyper, 124, Rutherglen Road, Glasgow, and late of the Gordon Highlanders, joined the Army several years ago in perfect health; that recently he was discharged unfit for service on medical grounds; that all claim to a pension has been refused; and that the man has since his discharge been under the constant care of the family doctor; if he will take steps to have the case reconsidered; and, if not, can he have the case decided by an appeal tribunal or can he state what right of appeal the man has?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am having inquiries made, and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I wrote to him about this case at least two months ago?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member may not have noticed it, but the name of the particular soldier concerned was changed only this morning. As he put it down originally, the name began with the letter "B," but as it is on the Paper, it begins with the letter "W." These letters are sufficiently far apart in the alphabet to prevent me from tracing the case.

FIRST AND CONDITIONAL AWARDS.

Mr. W. BAKER: 60.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of first awards
of pension to fresh applicants during 1927, and the number of conditional awards current on the 1st January, 1928?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The total number of first awards of all kinds made in the calendar year 1927 was 4,355. On the 1st January, 1928, there were about 8,500 officers and nurses and 146,000 men in receipt of conditional awards in respect of disablement arising out of service in the Great War.

Mr. BAKER: Would it be possible to give the figures analysed for the various categories in the country?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I could not answer that question without notice.

DISABLED PENSIONERS (SCOTLAND).

Dr. SHIELS: 61
asked the Minister of Pensions (1) how many disabled pensioners there are in Scotland; and what is the average number for the last three years of disabled or affected men without pension who have attended the Ministry centres for treatment;
(2) how many men in Scotland last year received home treatment with allowances; and what is the total number of hospital beds in Scotland which the Ministry considers adequate;
(3) how many Scottish disabled men are being treated in England; what are the numbers for the respective diseases or conditions; and where are the places of treatment?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: As the answer involves a considerable amount of detailed figures, I propose to circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The total number of disabled officers, nurses and men in receipt of pension or other grant from the Ministry in Scotland is approximately 43,000. The average number of patients attending at Ministry clinics in Scotland and in receipt of in-patient treatment in each of the last three years was as follows:





Clinics.
Ministry Hospitals.


1925
…
…
960
600


1926
…
…
610
495


1927
…
…
425
365


1,484 disabled men received treatment at home together with allowances during the year 1927. The Ministry has in view hospital accommodation in Scotland for current needs of about 400 beds, which will provide a substantial reserve. In view of the decline in the requirements of hospital treatment, I am unable to estimate what accommodation may ultimately be found to be necessary. 105 Scottish disabled men are under treatment in Ministry hospitals in England. Of these, 99 are in four hospitals, namely, Harrowby, Orpington, Cosham and Maghull, which have been established for the treatment of special forms and degrees of nervous disease, including epilepsy, and six are medical and surgical cases receiving special treatment in Mossley Hill (1), Sidcup (2), and Roehampton (3) Hospitals.

SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT.

Mr. MAXTON: 64.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of cases in which applications for pensions have been rejected under the time limit by local area officials without reference to headquarters; and, if not, whether he will instruct these officials to keep a record of all such cases during the present year?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: It is not the practice of the Department to keep a record of applications of this or of any other kind in which, for one reason or another, the Ministry are unable to take action, and my right hon. Friend would not he justified in requiring this additional record to be kept.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it not important that we should know how many persons are applying for pensions, and how many are being rejected under the seven years' limit, seeing that no figures are available either local or national?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: If any man comes forward and applies for a pension and he gives no proof that his injury was due to war service, of course his application is rejected; but, if he can bring forward any proof at all that his injury is attributable to war service, his case will be taken up and looked into.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that a large majority of the applications never get beyond the local office?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the projected eviction from his small holding of Mr. William E. Grierson, of Terregles, for arrears of rent and building annuity; whether he has been informed that this man is an ex-soldier twice severely wounded during the War, is without pension, and has sunk all his savings in his holding; that he is of good character and habits, and that his difficulties have largely accrued from flooding due to defective drainage, and to the effects of officially condemned buildings; that his agent has offered an instalment of £32 to a debt of £44, and that the Scottish Board of Agriculture has refused the offer; and whether he will make a special investigation into the facts of this case before eviction is proceeded with?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am aware of the circumstances of this case which were fully reported to me before a decision to evict was reached. I do not accept the suggestion that Mr. Grierson's difficulties were due to the causes indicated in the third part of the question. The, fact is that the holding has been badly neglected, and that notwithstanding cancellation of debt to the extent of £38, the holder's debt at the time of his eviction amounted to £54. The position now is that proceedings have been taken to remove the holder and his relatives who have returned into unlawful occupation of the buildings. I see no reason to stay these proceedings.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the local sanitary authority officially condemned these buildings?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have gone fully into the circumstances of the case, and I can see no reason for altering the decision.

Mr. JOHNSTON: But is not that a statement of fact—that the local sanitary authority officially condemned these buildings?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware of whether they condemned them or not, but
that matter has no bearing on the question of the cultivation of the holding, and the work which the man was supposed to do.

Mr. HARDIE: Has the cultivation of this holding been compared with the cultivation of adjacent holdings?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is easy to know when a holding has not been properly cultivated.

Mr. MACLEAN: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the applicants for small holdings, whose applications are still outstanding, placed their applications previous to 31st December, 1925?

Sir J. GILMOUR: At 31st December, 1925, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland's list contained 6,772 outstanding applications for small holdings, exclusive of applications for enlargements, and in the two years ended 31st December, 1927, 890 additional applications were received. By the latter date settlements and withdrawals had reduced the total outstanding to 4,924. It is not possible without a scrutiny of individual applications to say precisely how many of this total were lodged prior to 31st December, 1925.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it worth while going into this matter to find out how many individuals have been waiting for many years to have applications for small holdings considered and granted by the Scottish Board of Health?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think the cost and time required to make that inquiry would be justified.

Mr. MACLEAN: I shall put down another question asking how many claims were held up prior to 1925.

Mr. DAY: What was the number of applications for enlargements?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand the outstanding claims on 31st December, 1925, were 3,283.

ROADS, HARRIS.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for
Scotland whether he will make inquiries into the cause of the delay in completing the highway known as the Bays Road, in South Harris?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The construction of this road has been completed as far as Geocrab with funds advanced by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. The Board are unable meantime to consider the question of a further grant for an extension of the road.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 18.
asked the Sectary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the danger to the travelling public caused by the delay in taking over, as a public highway, the road in Harris, known as the Clisham deviation, he will make inquiries into the matter?

Parliamentary Division.
Number of Primary Schools.
Number of Classes.
Number of children in average attendance.
Average size of class.


Gorbals
…
…
…
…
15
299
13,514
45.2


Pollok
…
…
…
…
7
145
6,121
42.2


Cathcart
…
…
…
…
9
149
6,146
41.2

YOUNG OFFENDERS, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the nature of the inquiries he carried out in connection with the large number of persons under 21 years of age who were arrested and tried at the Glasgow Southern Court as compared with the Glasgow Queen's Park Court; where he secured the information regarding lack of parental control; and if he will, in view of the large difference, have a public inquiry into the whole position?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As regards the first two parts of the question, my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member on the 6th March followed upon reports which I obtained from the police. Lack of parental control is responsible for much juvenile crime, and it is indicated by the nature of many of the offences which are prevalent in the Southern Police Division of Glasgow. I see no reason for acceding to the suggestion in the last part of the question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question as to who

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have obtained a report on the subject. Responsibility for taking any necessary action to secure the inclusion of the road in the County List of Highways would appear to rest with the Harris District Committee.

SCHOOLS, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of schools in the Gorbals Division and the number of children attending them; the same figures for Pollok and Cathcart; and the average size of class in each of those places?

Sir J. GILMOUR: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures that he asks for.

Following are the figures:

supplied him with the information? Is he only giving us his own idea of the reports which are sent on to him?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I get reports from the police on the circumstances and nature of the crimes, and it is on those reports that I give answers.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman take any precaution to inquire into the circumstances of the parents in these cases, where it is suggested that the children are left to themselves?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is not for me to inquire. That is a matter for the Court.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate any steps to find out how the police establish this charge of lack of parental control?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I say, many of these crimes are obviously committed by youthful offenders, and this would not occur, if there were sufficient parental control.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to see if there is not a difference in the police administration as between these two districts; and is he aware that the well-to-do district receives totaly different treatment from the police, compared with the poorer district?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the well-to-do district the parents recollect the maxim of Solomon, "Spare the rod and spoil the child"?

CREAM (PRESERVATIVES).

Mr. MAXTON: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has been able to assist milk sellers in Scotland to find an alternative preservative for cream in place of those prohibited by the Order which now comes into force?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. MAXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman had communications from big interests with reference to the loss that is going to be entailed through the failure to provide an alternative for the prohibited preservative?

Sir J. GILMOUR: yes, Sir, I have received representations, but my own view is that this cream can be kept without preservatives and that it is in the interests of the public health. I may add that the Scottish Board of Health is shortly receiving a deputation representing the interests concerned.

Mr. MAXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman transmitted to the interests concerned, reasons in support of his view that it can be kept without preservatives?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The interests concerned are fully aware of the fact that cream produced in this country can be circulated to the public without these preservatives.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the opinion expressed by him is contrary to the views held by those engaged in the cream trade?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that the alternative is either cream with a little preservative, or no cream at all?

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price charged for cream is quite sufficient to protect vendors from loss due to depreciation?

METHYLATED SPIRITS (CONSUMPTION).

Mr. HARDIE: 50.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in view of the alleged drinking of methylated spirits in Glasgow, what steps are taken to see that such methylated spirits have been denatured?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): Denaturation is the essential feature of the process of methylation of spirits. This process is confined by law to licensed methylators or authorised distillers or rectifiers. The operations of these traders are under strict control by the officers of Customs and Excise, who see that, in every case, the prescribed denaturants are properly mixed with the spirits.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In view of the alleged prevalence of this practice in Glasgow, is not the only safeguard to be found in a reduction in the duty upon whisky, thereby ensuring that the people will drink pure alcohol?

Mr. BARR: Was it not established by the figures published the other day that it is in those very districts of Glasgow where whisky drinking most abounds that the consumption of methylated spirits also abounds?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

CLOSED MINES, STAFFORDSHIRE.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has inquired into the cause of the closing down of the Coppice Colliery, Heath Hayes, Staffordshire; and the reasons and the number of workers affected?

Commodore KING: I have been informed by the Company that certain parts of this pit have been stopped as being unprofitable in present circumstances. The latest figures that I have of the numbers employed in the pit show a reduction of 260.

Mr. ADAMSON: 25.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has been notified of
the stoppage of the No. 4 pit of the West Cannock Collieries, Staffordshire; the reason; and what number of the workers have been transferred to other pits of the same company?

Commodore KING: I have been informed by the company that coal winding ceased at this pit on 29th February. I have not been informed of the reason—nor can I say definitely how many of the workmen have found employment in the company's other pits. It appears from the latest return received that the number is about 60.

Mr. ADAMSON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiries from the President of the Board of Trade as to whether this is the result of the coordination and amalgamation policy?

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Are not both of these cases in Staffordshire examples of companies having followed out recommendations of the Samuel Commission?

Boys (ACCIDENTS).

Miss BONDFIELD: 26.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of boys aged from 14 to 16 employed in the British coal mines, and the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents, respectively, occurring in this age-group in the year 1927 or the latest date for which statistics are available?

Commodore KING: In December, 1927, about 41,400 boys under 16 years of age were employed above and below ground at mines under the Coal Mines Act. The total number of boys of this age killed during 1927 was 37 and the total number seriously injured, 264. I regret that particulars of the number less seriously injured during 1927 are not yet available, but during 1925, when 51,700 boys were employed, the total number of seriously and less seriously injured was about 9,200.

Mr. PALING: Is it a fact that the number of boys killed or seriously injured has gone up in a bigger proportion than the increase of hours?

Commodore KING: I should require notice of that question.

AMALGAMATIONS (DURHAM).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 27.
asked the Secretary for Mines what amalgamations
have taken place in the Durham coalfields since the Samuel Report was issued?

Commodore KING: I have not heard of any colliery amalgamations in Durham since the spring of 1926.

Mr. RICHARDSON: As apparently nobody has taken any notice of the amalgamation recommendation, is the Minister taking any interest in the matter, as he knows how many unemployed there are in the mining industry?

Commodore KING: I am taking the interest to find out, and I have been notified, as I say, of no amalgamations.

Mr. BATEY: Then are we to understand that there is no attempt at amalgamations in the county of Durham?

Commodore KING: No. The hon. Member must understand only what I have just stated, namely, that I have no knowledge of any amalgamation having taken place.

Mr. BATEY: I understood the Minister to say that he had no knowledge of any since the spring of 1926. Are we to understand that at the present time there are no attempts at amalgamation taking place in Durham?

Commodore KING: I did not say attempts. If the hon. Member had listened to my answer, he would know that I said that I had not heard of any colliery amalgamations.

Mr. LAWSON: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department taken any steps to see that the spirit of the Coal Mines Act, 1926, is carried out, so that amalgamations for efficiency purposes de take place?

Commodore KING: The Department has to report to this House after the 1st August what amalgamations have taken place. In the meantime, it is for the colliery companies themselves to amalgamate.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot follow this question further.

STATISTICS, DURHAM.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 28.
asked the Secretary for Mines what was the
amount of coal raised in Durham for the years 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927; and the cost per ton for wages and for expenditure, other than wages, and the amount paid to royalty owners, in those years in the county of Durham?

Commodore KING: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. RICHARDSON: May I have an answer in regard to the amount paid to royalty owners?

Year.
Quantity of Saleable Coal raised in Durham.
Wages per ton disposable commercially.
Costs other than Wages per ton disposable commercially.
Estimated amount of Royalties.


 


Tons.
s.
d.
s.
d.
£


1923
…
…
38,217,862
12
3¼
6
1½
999,000


1924
…
…
36,689,491
12
9
6
0
918300


1925
…
…
31,493,011
11
10
5
9¾
810,900


1926
…
…
14,136,418*


Not available.




1927
…
…
34,600,000†
9
0¼
5
5
864,000


* The production of coal was affected by a protracted dispute.


† Provisional figure.

NOTES.—(1) The tonnage on which the figures of costs per ton are calculated is the tonnage disposable commercially and represents only 93–94 per cent. of the output of saleable coal, the remaining 6–7 per cent. being accounted for by coal consumed under colliery engines or supplied to workers.

(2) The amounts shown for Royalties represent the amounts payable in respect of the periods named and include the rental value of freehold minerals where worked by the proprietor.

PIT-HEAD PRICES.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 29.
asked the Secretary for Mines the pit-head value of coal in Great Britain, Germany, France, and the United States of America for 1913 and 1927, respectively?

Commodore KING: In 1913 the average pit-head value of coal in Great Britain, Germany and France was 10.1, 11.2 and 13.6 shillings per statute ton, respectively. In the United States of America, pit-head values in that year were 10 shillings for anthracite and 5.5 shillings for bituminous coal. The estimated pit-head value in Great Britain in 1927 was 14.6 shillings per ton, but similar information for the other countries is not yet available.

PRODUCTION.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 30.
asked the
Secretary for Mines the figures showing the production of coal in Great Britain, Europe, and the United States of America respectively, for 1913 and 1927?

Commodore KING: I am giving that. The answer to that question is in the figures that I am giving.

Mr. RICHARDSON: But I would like to know if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will inform the House whether the royalty owners have given up any portion of their earnings to help the County of Durham at the present time?

Commodore KING: That is not in the question.

Following is the answer:

Commodore KING: As the reply includes a statistical table, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The production of coal in Great Britain, Europe and the United States of America in 1913 and 1927 was as follows:



1913.
1927 (Provisional figures).



Million Statute Tons.


Great Britain
287.35
252.0


Europe (excluding Great Britain).
306.94
344.0


United States of America:


Anthracite
81.72
74.0


Bituminous
427.17
464.0

EXPERIMENTS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 31.
asked the Secretary for Mines how much progress is being made in extracting oil from coal; and how much is being done to encourage experiments in low-temperature carbonisation and other methods?

Commodore KING: There are now five plants, each designed for a throughput of 100 tons a day or more, in working order in this country, representing at least five different processes for the low-temperature carbonisation of coal. There are some six or eight further systems represented by plants with a capacity of 10 tons a day or over. These include the type developed at His Majesty's Fuel Research Station, of which a 100-ton a day plant is being erected by the Gas Light and Coke Company. Large commercial plants of several of the other systems are stated to be under erection. The results obtained from these plants during the next few years should show how far, and under what conditions, each type is likely to be a commercial success. I would refer the hon. Member also to the recently issued Annual Report of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and to the answer of the President of the Board of Education to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) on 1st December last.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman any information as to the kind of coal that is being used for this low temperature carbonisation, whether it is non-coking coal or the ordinary small coal?

Commodore KING: I should require notice of that question.

SCOTTISH MINES (OUTPUT SCHEME).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 32.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the scheme announced by the coalowners of Scotland for the closing down of collieries by agreement among the owners, the payment of compensation to the proprietors of the closed collieries of 6d. per ton on all coal sold for home consumption by the collieries that continue to operate; whether the scheme provides for the raising of prices on the home market by 1s. 6d. per ton; and what steps, if any, he is taking to provide compensation to colliers who are thrown idle by these arrangements?

Commodore KING: I am informed that the scheme referred to by the hon. Member involves a levy on all coal raised other than that sold for export and bunkers, and a further levy on coal sold to public utility undertakings. The amount so raised is to be used for reducing the potential output of Scottish mines, but I understand that the basis of compensation has not yet been fixed. In reply to the last part of the question, I have at present no grounds for supposing that any miners now employed will be thrown idle by the introduction of the scheme.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that it is an essential part of the scheme that pits shall he closed and that that has been publicly announced by the coalowners themselves; and what steps is he taking to safeguard the rights of the colliers who are affected?

Commodore KING: I am not aware that the object of the scheme is to close pits. I am speaking of potential output, not actual output, and at present there are some seven or eight million tons of potential output not being worked in Scotland.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Is not this Scottish scheme in, accordance with one of the recommendations of the Samuel Commission?

Mr. BOOTHBY: Does my hon. and gallant Friend not regard this scheme as a very encouraging development in the coal industry?

Mr. B. SMITH: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it is a wise policy to transfer the extra cost of coal on to the British consumer in favour of the foreigner?

Mr. LUNN: Seeing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not aware of the effect of these schemes in Scotland and in parts of England, will he inquire whether or not these schemes are closing collieries as is suggested in the question?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Arising out of the original answer, may I ask whether in point of fact this scheme is not a direct subsidy to foreign manufacturers who use, British coal against British manufacturers?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is it not owing to the encouragement of strikes, thereby losing many of our markets, that this scheme has been put forward?

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I——

Mr. SPEAKER: These are all matters of opinion, not facts.

REPARATION COAL.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 33.
asked the Secretary of Mines, if he has any information of any variation which has taken place during the past six months in the programme for the delivery of reparation coal by Germany to France, Belgium, and Italy?

Commodore KING: The programmes of reparation coal deliveries to France remained unchanged at 1,000,000 tons a month during the six months October 1927-March 1928. The Belgian programme was reduced from 250,000 tons to 100,000 tons a month in December 1927, The Italian programme was 255,000 tons a month in October-November 1927, 266,000 tons in December, 420,000 in January 1928 and 425,000 tons in February and March.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD BRIDGES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any figures showing the number of road bridges in England and Wales on scheduled roads, first and second class, respectively, which are closed to heavy vehicles; and what steps are proposed to strengthen these bridges sufficiently to make them capable of bearing such vehicles?

Colonel ASHLEY: I regret that these figures are not at my disposal. While it is not for my Department to initiate schemes for strengthening bridges, I am always glad to give favourable consideration to proposals prepared to that end by the responsible highway authorities.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that large areas of the country are cut off from heavy motor traffic, with all
its advantages to trade, because of weak bridges; and does he not think that it is his business to see into the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have given considerable assistance in the past to strengthening these weak bridges, and I propose to continue to do so in future.

Mr. B. SMITH: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House the number of bridges, built under Royal Charter, which have been taken over and thrown upon the community without any burden being placed upon the original owners?

Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot do that without notice.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Have any schemes been deposited in the Ministry of Transport for the repair of such bridges and since abandoned on account of the depredations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Colonel ASHLEY: That is quite an erroneous impression.

MOTOR COACH STATION, BLOOMSBURY.

Sir R. THOMAS: 38.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the proposal to establish a central motor-coach terminal station for London on a site in Bloomsbury, he has considered the suitability of the locality for this purpose, with regard to the width of the approach roads and the risk of creating dangerous traffic conditions?

Colonel ASHLEY: A proposal for a motor-coach terminal station in this area has been brought to my notice, and, so far as my information goes, the site does not appear to be open to objection an the ground stated in the question. I should add, however, that I have no powers of control in the matter.

Sir R. THOMAS: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say who has the power?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not know.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that it is of sufficient importance for him to find out?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir. If there be any likelihood of congestion, which I understand there is not, it is much better
that the loading of goods and passengers should take place on private ground rather than in the street.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that other people do not take his view?

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

Mr. SPEAKER: This is Question Time.

Sir R. THOMAS: On a point of Order. I am asking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a question, and he tells me that he has no knowledge of the matter, and that he has no authority. I have asked him if he can refer me to the proper authority. Am I not entitled to an answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already put four or five supplementary questions on matters of opinion. It is taking the time away from other hon. Members.

ROAD GRANTS.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 40.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider making a grant towards the upkeep of roads which are damaged by hauling stone for the use of local authorities?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the roads in question are "classified" or "scheduled" their upkeep ranks for grant at the normal rates of percentage from the Road Fund.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that all roads damaged in this way are either classified or scheduled?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the local authority, who are responsible for the roads which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind, will make a request to have them scheduled, I will give it favourable consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, with a view to encouraging the use of English stone, he will consider making a reduction in all grants from the Road Fund to local authorities for improvement or maintenance of roads on which imported stone is used?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply
given on the 8th March to the hon. Member for the Melton Division (Mr. Everard), a copy of which I am sending him.

BEACONSFIELD-RICKMANSWORTH ROAD.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the proposed route of the reconstructed road from Beaconsfield to Rickmansworth, which would disturb seriously the historic Friends' meeting house at Jordans, Bucks; and whether, seieng that there is an alternative route which would not have the consequences of the one now proposed, this proposal can be reconsidered?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that in drafting the town-planning proposals for this area the local authority is considering how best to adapt the roads for future traffic requirements, having regard to imminent building developments. No scheme has yet been submitted to my Department, but should such proposals come before me, I will take care that all practicable alternatives are considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.

GREATER LONDON AND COUNTIES TRUST, LIMITED.

Mr. LOOKER: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Greater London and Counties Trust, Limited, incorporated to supply electricity to the South of England, is raising, or proposes to raise, a large portion of its capital in America; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the companies' requirements for electrical plant and equipment are placed in this country?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have seen statements in the Press to the effect of the first part of the question. As regards the second part, my approval is not required to the placing of orders for electrical plant and equipment by any electrical undertaking.

Mr. LOOKER: Is it consistent with the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's Department that the electrification of England should be carried out by American or other foreign capital rather than by British capital; and does he consider
that he has any obligation to insure that the orders for plant are placed in the United Kingdom rather than in foreign countries?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the question on the Paper in almost the same words.

Mr. HANNON: In reference to the second part of the question, has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not had a definite assurance from this trust that they are prepared to purchase British machinery for all their requirements?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have received a communication to that effect.

Mr. HARDIE: Was not the hon. Gentleman who put the question a member of the Committee that gave these powers?

COMPANIES (CAPITAL).

Mr. HARDIE: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the watering of capital in private enterprise electricity supply preventing the cheapening of the unit, as promised by the Government when placing the last Act controlling the industry, he is taking any action to prevent this practice?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not clear what particular circumstances the hon. Member has in mind, but perhaps he will furnish me with more specific details.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the Minister of Transport not aware that immediately before the Electricity Bill became an Act, these private companies were prepared to capitalise their reserves and to hand out £5 or £6 or £7 for a £1 share; and does he not think that that is something he ought to take into consideration?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member will kindly amplify in writing the details he has given, I will look into them.

Sir F. HALL: Is it advisable in the interests of any undertaking that such statements should be circulated, when they have practically no truth in them?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must consider their colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

LONDON CITY TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.

Mr. DAY: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to give a definite date when the London City Telephone Exchange is to be made automatic on the same lines as the Holborn Exchange?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The present City Telephone Exchange is working satisfactorily, and a date has not yet been fixed for its conversion to automatic working.

TELEPHONE CALL BOXES (ADVERTISE MENTS).

Mr. DAY: 52.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of telephone booths in the London area that will shortly be fitted with electrical advertisement signs; and whether this contract was open to competitive offer?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The right to exhibit advertisements of all kinds in telephone call boxes is held by the United Kingdom Advertising Company, who obtained it by competitive tender. I am unable to answer the first part of the question.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH WORKERS.

Mr. HANNON: 53.
asked the Postmaster-General whether any further developments have taken place with reference to the request of the National Federation of Postal and Telegraph Workers for official recognition; and if he will now review his former decision?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Mr. HANNON: This is a matter which has been before my right hon. Friend for a long period. When does he think he will really give it serious consideration?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My view on this matter has not changed. I laid down the qualifying rule several years ago, and I still adhere to it.

Mr. HANNON: Is not this an instance of the evil of maintaining one's opinion without checking it?

UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE CABLES.

Mr. KELLY: 54.
asked the Postmaster-General the amount and length of cable work which in 1921 was placed underground under the scheme of transferring overhead telephone wires to underground, and the amount which was undertaken in 1927?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THONISON: The value and single-wire length of the main trunk telephone cables laid underground in the year 1927 were, respectively, £349,000 and 41,000 miles. The corresponding figures for 1921 were £1,347,000 and 154,500 miles.

Mr. KELLY: Is there any intention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to increase that amount, in order to have more of these lines underground?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No; as I told the hon. Member the other day, we are extending the underground lines. He will realise, of course, that the figures for 1921 included several years of Wartime arrears.

TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH SERVICES.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 55.
asked the Postmaster-General what was the profit made during the past year by the telephone and telegraph section of the General Post Office; and how that compares with the profit of five years ago?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend means by profit, but on the assumption that he means the surplus which in a commercial company would be available for payment of interest charges after providing for maintenance, depreciation and operating costs, the figures for the combined telephone and telegraph services are as follow:

1921–1922
…
Deficit,
£1,573,115


1926–1927
…
Surplus,
£2,968,921

In the interval a sum estimated at £3,000,000 has been returned to telephone subscribers in the form of reduced charges.

TELEVISION TESTS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 56.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can inform the House as to what is being done at the moment in developing television; and whether any successful tests have been carried out recently?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Wireless licences covering experiments in television have been issued to a number of persons. I understand that tests have been carried out; but my technical advisers consider that the matter has not yet advanced beyond the experimental stage.

INLAND TELEGRAPH SERVICE (REPORT).

Mr. W. BAKER: 58.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the Report of the Committee on Inland Telegraphs has been received; whether any communication has been made to the Press; and how soon it will be laid upon the Table?

Colonel WOODCOCK: 57.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will give the date when the Report of the Hardman Lever Committee on Telegraph Service was completed; the reason why this Report has not yet been published; and on what date he expects that it will be made public?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I was going to refer the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker), as regards the first and last parts of his question, to the answer to Question No. 57, in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock), but, as my hon. and gallant Friend is not here to put his question, perhaps I had better read the answer to it now. It it as follows:

The Report was signed on 12th January, I have already stated in reply to similar questions that it contains a number of detailed recommendations which are being carefully examined and which will certainly involve further consideration. I should have preferred that this should have been further advanced before publication of the Report; but in view of the evident wishes of my hon. and gallant Friend and other Members I am arranging to have it printed and laid next week. The answer to the second part of the question of the hon. Member for East Bristol is in the negative.

Mr. W. BAKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has seen the column of news matter which purported to convey the contents of this Report which was published in the "Daily Mail," of which Sir Hardman Lever is a director, on the 6th of this month?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I regret that the hon. Gentleman should even appear by any innuendo to cast any
aspersion upon Sir Hardman Lever. The hon. Member will see how entirely unjustified his statement is when he sees the Report, and when I tell him that what purported to be a forecast was wholiy inaccurate.

DIRECT TELEPHONE EXCHANGE LINES.

Mr. DAY: 59.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of direct telephone exchange lines in use in Great Britain at the last convenient date, giving the numbers separately in use in the London area?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: 1,005,194 on the 31st, December last, including 327,043 in the London telephone area.

FILMS (PRODUCTION AND ASSISTANCE).

Mr. WELLOCK: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the use of His Majesty's naval, military, and air forces and equipment for the production of war films is causing a large number of such films to be put on the market, and that objection is widely felt to such films as encouraging the war spirit, he will consider the advisability of limiting this practice to films the sole object of which is to procure an historical record?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The answer is in the negative. I do not think that the films referred to have the effect which the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. WELLOCK: May I inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman has been to some of the cheaper houses where the pictures are exhibited?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, I regret that I have not had that opportunity.

PRIME MINISTER'S PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY.

Mr. WHITELEY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that he has appointed as private secretary Mr. R. G. Vansittart, an assistant Under-Secretary
of State in the Department of Foreign Affairs, he will say whether there is a precedent for an official of similar status being employed on the duties of private secretary; and whether any payment additional to the normal salary of his grade is being paid to the official acting as deputy to the assistant Under-Secretary of State?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The selection of a senior officer in the Civil Service to act as principal private secretary to the Prime Minister exactly conforms with the practice of appointing senior naval and military officers to act as naval and military secretaries respectively to the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War. The officer selected to deputise in the Foreign Office for Mr. Vansittart will receive the additional pay appropriate to his acting rank.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it was regarded as desirable by the Cabinet that Mr. Vansittart should he removed so speedily out of the somewhat difficult and very responsible post to which he had been so recently appointed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it has always been usual for the House of Commons to leave the Executive free to dispose of its officers in whatever manner it thinks most conducive to the advantage of the public service.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the particular office that Mr. Vansittart held in the Foreign Office has lately been a matter of very great public interest, as has also the transference of the Prime Minister's Parliamentary private secretary to the Conservative party's offices, and is it not in the public interest that some information should be given as to why all these moves have been made at this particular time?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot think of any interest which is superior to that of the Prime Minister, who has unique responsibilities imposed upon him, having at his side the assistance that he requires in the conduct of affairs. As to the other point raised, that is not involved in the question, though I should be very glad to deal with it if it were.

ARTIFICIAL SILK INDUSTRY.

Mr. MAXTON: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he will have inquiry made into the wages, conditions of labour, and health conditions of workers in the artificial silk industry?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I have been asked to reply. I have no power to order an inquiry such as the hon. Member suggests. If, however, the hon. Member is in possession of any facts which seem to him to require investigation I shall be glad to look into them.

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. This is a question which I have put down on three occasions. First, I put it to the Minister of Labour, who told me he had not the facts, then I put it to the President of the Board of Trade, and now to the Prime Minister. On each occasion, I have been switched back to the Minister of Labour, who has no information. Can you tell me, Sir, to whom I can apply for information about the conditions of labour in safeguarded industries?

Mr. SPEAKER: It would appear that the information does not exist, if the hon. Member has tried three sources and has not been able to get it.

Mr. MAXTON: As I understand it, no industry is safeguarded until the whole of its affairs, including the conditions of labour, have been examined by a committee, to establish the question of whether it is subject to unfair competition. I want to know if this information is not available in the case of the artificial silk industry?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is no compulsory power of obtaining facts with regard to wages unless there is reason to believe that an industry comes under the category of a sweated industry to which the Trade Boards Act should properly be applied. Under such circumstances, if there be prima facie evidence, an inquiry may be made, and my Department would be the proper Department to make such an inquiry. At present, I have no such prima facie evidence, but if the hon. Member can furnish me with any particulars which would give me reason to believe that such an inquiry is necessary I should be glad to consider the point.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me how the Government have established the fact that this industry is subject to unfair competition without having any knowledge whatever of the conditions in the industry?

HON. MEMBERS: It is not a safeguarded industry.

GOLD (CONTROL).

Mr. BLUNDELL: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any joint action has been taken by the Governments of the world to control gold, and thus stabilise prices, as recommended by the Genoa Conference in 1922?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Giving effect to the Genoa Resolutions is a matter which concerns the Central Banks of issue in the various countries. I understand that co-operation between Central Banks has made considerable progress in recent years.

MALE SERVANT LICENCE DUTY.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual sum realised by the 15s. tax on men servants; and whether, in view of its effect on unemployment, he will reconsider this tax?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The proceeds of the male servant licence duty for the year ended 31st March, 1927, the latest period for which figures are at present available, were £133,366. The duty is not an Imperial but a Local Taxation duty, and I am afraid that I could not undertake to introduce legislation which would deprive local authorities of part of their revenue, unless I were sure of their unanimous consent, and that a demand would not be made upon the Exchequer to replace the revenue surrendered.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are many men would would like to take up this occupation, and their chances are now taken by women, and that this is unfair discrimination?

Mr. CHURCHILL: But that does not at all get round the difficulty of the £133,366.

Sir F. HALL: But why should men be taxed and not women?

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that for more than 100 years this duty has never been applied in Ireland, though it has been in operation in Great Britain?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We have very little to do with Ireland now.

Sir F. HALL: In view of the new Franchise Bill, under which we are to give the same voting rights to men and women, is it proposed that a duty shall be placed upon female servants?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a matter which may well be considered in another Parliament.

ARMS AND AMMUNITION (EXPORTATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what restrictions on the export of arms from this country are in force; whether a licence is required to export arms and munitions; who is responsible for the issue of such licences; and whether any arms have been exported from this country to Ibn Saud, King of the Hejaz and of Nejd, or his feudatories, since the present Government took office?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have been asked to reply. The export of all arms and ammunition from this country, except under licence issued by the Board of Trade, is prohibited by the Arms Export Prohibition Order, 1921. As regards the last part of the question, I am having a search made through the registers and will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT within the next few days particulars of any licences that may have been issued for exportation to the destinations in question. Licences for these destinations are only issued after consultation with the Foreign Office and Service Departments.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since the present Government came into office permission has been granted for the export of several thousand machine guns, and will he tell me what safeguards are sought before such permission is given, in order to ensure that these weapons will not come into the hands of the enemies, or potential enemies of this country?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. If he desires to ask me a further question, I should be glad if he would put it down.

INDIA (CHAPLAINS, RANGOON).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 66.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in July, 1927, the Government of Burma strongly recommended that the Government of India should restore Burma allowance to the chaplains at Rangoon because of the hardship imposed on those officials by its withdrawal, and that in forwarding the case to the Government of India the Government of Burma pointed out that, in their opinion, the 10 years' period of the Secretary of State sanction should not be disturbed and that they themselves had maintained that principle when they revised the 1922 scale of Rangoon allowances in 1926; and whether he will consider the carrying out of the recommendations of the Government of Burma?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): In 1925 the General Orders governing the grant of compensatory allowances admissible to officers under the control of the Central Government were applied to chaplains who should be posted to Rangoon after that date but not to existing incumbents. I was not aware that any representation on the subject had been made by the Government of Burma, but the Government of India are at present examining the whole question of the grant of these allowances, and will no doubt give full consideration to the views of the Local Government. My Noble Friend hopes shortly to receive a full report from the Government of India on the subject. When this has been considered, I shall be happy to communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the Noble Lord aware that a chaplain who proceeds on leave from a station in Burma other than Rangoon gets a higher leave salary than one who goes on leave from Rangoon?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not know that that arises out of the question. A careful search failed to disclose to me
that any chaplains were posted to Rangoon after 1925. Therefore, the alleged hardship to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred is merely a hypothetical hardship.

FLYING ACCIDENT (SOUTHAMPTON WATER).

Mr. HANNON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement to the House on the circumstances under which Flight-Lieutenant S. M. Kinkead lost his life in Southampton Water yesterday; whether the speed trial undertaken by this gallant officer was approved by the Air Ministry; if speed trials of this character serve any useful purpose in aircraft organisation for defence; if an inquiry will be held to ascertain the cause of the disaster, and if in speed trials in future measures will be taken to reduce to a minimum the possibilities of accident?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): As regards the first part of the question, pending the recovery of the machine, which is sunk in water of some depth, I regret that I am unable to add anything to the information that has appeared in the Press on this subject. The answer to the remaining parts is in the affirmative. I will only add that the machine and

engine employed were of the same type as those which won the Schneider contest in Venice last September, and that every possible precaution is, of course, and has always been taken to reduce to a minimum the possibilities of accident in flights of this character. I am sure the House will, as I said yesterday, join with me in expressing their profound sympathy to the relatives of this most gallant and promising officer, whose untimely death we all most deeply mourn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: Before the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is put, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what business the Government intend to take to-night in the event of the Motion being agreed to?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We desire to obtain the Second Reading of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill, and also the remaining stages of the British Guiana Bill. That is all that we have to do.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Churchill.]

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 133.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

4.0 p.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill to which I am asking the House to give a Second Reading this afternoon comprises two Clauses. The first Clause prolongs for a period of five years certain provisions which were first enacted in 1923, subsequently re-enacted without amendment in 1924 and 1926, and would expire, in default of further legislation, on the 31st March this year. The extended provision will be found in the Schedule to the Bill, and the House will see that they deal with two subjects, first, with the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, which, of course, concerns only London, and, secondly, with the borrowing powers of local authorities, and the procedure connected therewith applying to the whole country. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything about those borrowing powers which are already in existence, the necessity for continuing which, I think, is acknowledged by everybody. I propose, therefore, to confine myself to that part of the Clause and the Schedule which deals with the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and with the second Clause, which introduces a new procedure for the supervision and control of the Fund. In order to do that, perhaps I ought, for the benefit of any hon. Members who may not be familiar with the facts, to explain what the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund is.
The Fund was originally established in 1867 under the Metropolitan Poor Act, and it was set up for the purpose of equalising over the whole of London the charges of the guardians in connection with the maintenance of lunatics, sick poor in asylums and infirmaries, salaries of officials, the cost of medicine and drugs and various other minor items. In 1870, three years later, an amending Act was passed which introduced into the items chargeable to the Fund the cost of indoor relief, but the amount which might be charged to the Fund was limited to the
sum of 5d. per head per clay for the persons receiving indoor relief. After that there were various other amending Acts but not of any importance, and substantially the Fund remained in the same position until the year 1921. In that year, a further Act was passed which raised the limit on the amount chargeable in respect of indoor relief from 5d. to ls. 3d. per head, and for the first time the cost of outdoor relief was made also chargeable to the Fund. It was considered then that for outdoor relief and indoor relief there should be some limit upon the amount which should be charged to the Fund, and that limit was sought to he imposed under the 1921 Act by means of a scale and conditions laid down by the Minister of Health. That was a temporary Act, which only lasted until the end of 1922, and in 1923 I introduced a further amending Act, under which the scale and conditions, which had been found cumbersome and impracticable in working, were abolished, and we substituted for them a limit on the same lines as that which had already prevailed in respect of indoor relief, and made the limit of outdoor relief 9d. per head per day. That Act, which was also a temporary Act only lasting for one year, was extended for two years in 1924, and again for another two years in 1926, and it is that Act which has remained in force up to the present time.
The working of the Fund is as follows: Each half-year the guardians in every union in London draw up a statement of their expenditure during the preceding six months upon the several items chargeable to the Fund. That statement is duly checked and audited, and they are credited in the account books of the Fund with the amount of their expenditure. At the same time, they are debited with the amount which they would have spent upon these items if the whole of the expenditure of all the unions were spread evenly throughout the whole area in proportion to the rateable value of each union, and it is the difference between the two sides of that account which constitutes the amount which is due either to or from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. A union which has spent more than the average amount draws the difference from the Fund, and a union which has spent less pays the difference into the Fund. The general result of the
operation of this scheme has been that the richer boroughs in London make very substantial contributions towards the expenses of their poorer brethren, and those contributions have increased very considerably as time goes on. In 1913, the total amount which was paid out of the Fund was a little over £400,000. Last year it amounted to about £2,500,000, and, therefore, the various receiving unions, by means of the Fund, have been relieved of a very large proportion of their total expenditure. Last year, for instance, Shoreditch drew 31 per cent. of the total expenditure in the union out of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, Greenwich drew 35 per cent., Stepney 35 our cent., Bermondsey 38 per cent., Bethnal Green 43 per cent., and Poplar 48 per cent.
The receiving unions, therefore, have benefited to a very considerable extent by the operation of the Fund. Anybody would suppose that they would have been well content with such results as those, but not a bit of it. They are always asking for more, and on every occasion when it has been proposed still further to prolong the operation of the system, both the paying unions and the receiving unions have approached the Minister of Health by representation and by deputation, and have asked for a change in the respective limits on the amount that can be charged for indoor and outdoor relief. The receiving unions have invariably asked that the limits might he raised, and the paying unions similarly have desired that the limits might be lowered: but successive Ministers, after hearing what the representatives of the two sets of unions have had to say, have never been able to find sufficient justification in the figures and facts submitted to them to alter the limits that were first laid down in 1923. The House will observe that in the Bill before it this afternoon it is not proposed to make any change, but to leave those limits where they have been for the last five years.
The paying unions, however, have made another claim—a claim of rather a different character, and one which it is not so easy to dismiss. They never maintained that the principle of equalisation was unfair. They never said that they ought to be relieved from all contributions to these charges, which, I think,
everybody recognises are more or less common to the whole of London; but what they do say is, that if there is to be an equalisation and a standardisation of charges, then there ought, at the same time, to be a similar equalisation of the methods of administering the items which are charged to the Common Fund. They do not claim that they have any right to interfere with the discretion of the individual unions which are drawing money from the Fund, but what they do say is, that if certain unions choose to adopt methods which are different from those adopted by others, and which result in very largely increasing expense, then the extra cost thus incurred ought to be at the charge of the ratepayers in the areas of those unions, and not at the charge of London as a whole, which has no control whatever, and no voice in the administration of the Fund. They go further than that. They maintain that the very fact that certain bodies can draw out of the common purse almost ad lib without proportionately raising the rates in their own areas, has a direct influence in encouraging extravagance, laxity and carelessness in the administration, which, in turn, again raises the expenditure for which they have to pay.
In considering a claim of that kind, I thought it was desirable to investigate the figures, and see what actually has happened. The House will observe that under the system which we are working, a system which limits the amount chargeable to the Fund to a certain sum per head per day, what really governs the amount that can be drawn out of the Fund is not directly. at any rate, the actual scale of relief. or the amount of relief given to individuel persons, but the number of persons who are drawing relief. If, therefore, it be true that the effect of the Fund hoe been to increase the number of such persons, then that ought to appear in the comparative figures which are to be investigated. I have been looking at these figures, and they do certainly seem to me to show some rather astonishing results. I have taken unions in pairs, and compared the number of persons in receipt of relief at the end of February, 1920, with the similar number at the end of February, 1928, and I tried, in picking the pairs, to take two unions which started from
approximately the same point. For instance, here is Fulham, which in 1920 had 333 persons in receipt of outdoor relief: in 1928 that was increased to 1,764. Compare that with Bethnal Green. They started on the earlier date with 146 persons—less than half: in 1928 that had risen to 11,575.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same party is in power? It is a non-party organisation running the guardians, and they are quite detached people who do not desire to put any person on the Poor Law unless they are convinced he deserves it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know why the hon. Member speaks of party at all. I never mentioned party. I am comparing one union with another to see how the practice has varied.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it unfair to take 1920? The boom of trade did not break until June or July of 1920. Will he give us 1921?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It does not matter very much what year you take so long as you take the same year for both unions. I will take another pair. This is Hackney, which started off with 1,163, compared with Stepney, which started off with 1,030. In 1928 Hackney had risen to 5,434, about four times, and Stepney had risen to 16,320. Finally, one more pair. Islington started with 2,532, at a time when Poplar had 2,934. Islington has risen to 5,807 and Poplar to 23,913. There is another way of making a test of what has happened in London, and that is to take the numbers in receipt of outdoor relief in London per 10,000 of the population and compare that with the number taking the average of the country as a whole, and I find that in 1913 London's rate was 65, compared with 106 for the rest of England and Wales, and in 1927 London's rate was 328, compared with 245 for the rest of England and Wales, so that whereas the increased percentage in the case of England was 147, in London it had gone up 430 per cent.

Mr. MacLAREN: What is the point of the comparison?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The point of the comparison is that London has increased
very much more than the rest of the country and one has to find some reason for that increase.

Mr. HARRIS: Safeguarding.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a safeguarding Measure that I am engaged upon. Hon. Members interrupted me just now and said it was not a fair comparison to take these pairs. I suppose their argument is that the conditions were so different in the two unions that that would be sufficient to account for this astonishing difference in the number of persons in receipt of outdoor relief. I must say I think they will find it hard to produce evidence which would substantiate that contention. Although it is true that the amount chargeable to the fund is governed by the number of persons rather than by the amount of relief per person, yet it is the general experience throughout the country that where you have a high scale of relief, and what I call extravagant administration, the result invariably is that you get large increases in the number of persons on outdoor relief. That is, of course, illustrated by what happened in West Ham. Under the old administration in West Ham the number of persons on relief was very large. Taking in each case a figure in the middle of July, in 1922 the number of persons in receipt of outdoor relief in West Ham was 67,800, in 1923 it was 74,500, in 1924, 68,000, in 1925, 57,000, and in 1926, 60,000. Then the appointed guardians took office, and in 1927 it dropper to 31,000. I think that is conclusive, evidence that the number of persons varies with the general tone and attitude of the guardians. The higher the scale, the more liberal the amount of relief given, the more persons come along to get relief, and, of course, where relief amounts, as it sometimes does, to more than a person can get, when he is in full work, that is not likely to act as a deterrent to people seeking relief.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the firms in those localities get their work done with so many men refusing to work? It is astonishing how they keep their trade going.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a tribute to their enterprise, and it is quite
possible they did not do as much work. I conclude that a case has been made out for some control of the expenditure throughout London, and the next question to which I have to address myself is, What should be the nature of the control if control is to be set up. There are various ways, and there have been various suggestions as to the way in which control might be exercised. Some people have suggested that the Minister himself should exercise control. I have no hesitation in rejecting that solution. Quite apart from any personal inconvenience, I think it would be an undesirable thing that the Minister should be asked to administer judicial functions in a matter which is frequently the subject of party controversy, and where, however impartially he exercises his judgment—the same thing would apply to whatever Minister were in office—it would always be suspected that he was being at least influenced by partisan motives in the decision he might give. Therefore, I put that aside.
Then there is another suggestion, that some Commission should be set up—a big three—to administer control. A big three is often very effective in exercising control, but I am very unwilling to add still another body to all those that already exist in London. Moreover, seeing that I regard the arrangement in this Bill as only temporary—the Bill is only timed to last for five years—it would appear to be giving ourselves more trouble than is necessary to set up a special body for this purpose, which after a time would find its existence terminated and its functions handed over to someone else. I would much rather find the control that is required here in some body already existing in London. There is, of course, the London County Council but I doubt very much whether the London County Council would be welcomed in that capacity by the metropolitan boroughs, and I doubt very much whether it would care to undertake such a task, and certainly it is a body which has not hitherto been concerned with Poor Law administration, and I do not think in this case it would be particularly well fitted for the work.
There remains a fourth alternative, which is the one adopted in the Bill, and that is the Metropolitan Asylums
Board. The Metropolitan Asylums Board is composed of 73 members, 55 of whom are elected by the various unions themselves in proportion to rateable value, and 18 nominated by the Minister of Health. It is true the functions of the Metropolitan Asylums Board have hitherto been mainly directed towards the carrying on of the various institutions. There are the infirmaries, the cost of which is, of course, a charge on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.

Mr. LANSBURY: What infirmaries? I think the right hon. Gentleman is making a mistake. They have no control over the local hospitals, or what are called infirmaries. They are only in charge of fever hospitals, fever ships and so on.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to the Hon. Member if he is correct. I put, that aside. But whatever it is, they are reponsible for the care of institutions and not of outdoor relief. That is the point I was endeavouring to make. Of course many of its members have been personally very familiar with the administration of outdoor relief and have been engaged in it themselves, and on the whole it seems to me you could not possibly find in London any body which was generally, by its composition and by the experience of its members, so well fitted to exercise the sort of control that we have in mind, as the Metropolitan Asylums Board. I have examined the numbers of the representatives of the various unions and classified them according to whether they were receiving or paying unions in order to see whether it could be alleged that the paying unions had an undue representation on the Board. I find that, of the 55 members, 28 would be representatives of the receiving unions and 27 of the paying unions, so that, as it turns out, they are almost exactly evenly divided between the two, with a very slight majority on the side of the receiving unions. Of course, there are also the nominated members who constitute a third of the elected members. They are not selected as representing any particular class of union. They are chosen for their general competence and for their experience in the work which they have to carry out. On the whole, I am satisfied—and I think the House may be satisfied—that they are
members who will be prepared to carry out this work with fairness, with impartiality, and generally with confidence.
One word about the period for which this Bill provides. Previous extensions of the system have never been for more than two years at a time. On this occasion, we are proposing to extend the period to five years. I observe that hon. Members opposite have assumed from that that the Government have abandoned all idea of what is called Poor Law reform. That assumption is far from being warranted. Five years have been purposely chosen in order to make it quite certain that it will cover the date at which would take place not the introduction of a Bill but the operation of an Act to reform the Poor Law system. Anybody who has studied the question must he aware that the changes involved in the reform of the Poor Law system are so considerable that it would be quite impossible that it should come into operation immediately from the passing of an Act. There must necessarily be a substantial period for the adjustments which will be required to be made, and, therefore, we have thought it desirable to save the House the trouble of having to pass another prolongation Bill before our altered Poor Law system becomes operative, and we have put in this period of five years for that purpose.
I notice from the Amendment upon the Paper that the Opposition speak of subjecting the policy and expenditure of elected boards of guardians to the caprices of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. I suppose that word "caprice" is a synonym for a form of control, because whatever body you set up to exercise control it is quite certain that those who do not like its decisions will speak of them as being actuated by caprice. I venture to think that this House will consider that it is time that the rates of London as a whole cease to be governed by the caprices of boards of guardians who are not responsible for a large part of their expenditure to the people who have to find the money. If the hon. Members object to this Bill, they must tell us where they stand. They must tell us whether they object to any kind of control at all.

Miss LAWRENCE: No.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is what I want to know. I want to know whether they object to any kind of control at all, and whether they desire that these unions which are charging from 35 to 50 per cent. of their expenditure upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund are to be allowed to continue in that course. If they agree that some form of control is necessary and if they take exception merely to the particular body which is suggested in this Bill to exercise that control, then it is up to them to provide us with an alternative which will be equally competent and equally appropriate.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
whilst in favour of legislation continuing the extension of charges on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, this House protests against the continued neglect of the Government to deal comprehensively with the question of Poor Law reform, especially the problem of the able-bodied unemployed, and declines to assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which subjects the policy and expenditure of elected boards of guardians to the caprices of a body created for entirely different purposes and composed partly of irresponsible nominated persons.
We have had from the Minister a safeguarding speech. As I understand it, his object on the whole is to safeguard the interests of the well-to-do ratepayers as, against the interests of the poor. We are not surprised that that should be so, and I rise to move this Amendment to show that the party with which I am associated do not regard this Bill as being merely a London Bill. We regard it as one which raises large questions of policy. I agree, and we all agree, that because the present Act will soon cease to operate another Bill is necessary in order that financial assistance should continue to be provided, and I had assumed that the right hon. Gentleman would have been satisfied to reintroduce the Bill which was passed in 1924 and in 1926. I cast round in my own mind as to the possible way in which the right hon. Gentleman might amend this Bill. and I could not think of a way. I thought he had done his worst with the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act and with the Local Authorities Audit Act, and that there was nothing left for him to do. But now, his appetite having been
whetted by the pursuit of those poor wretched boards of guardians, he has discovered another method of making life extraordinarily awkward for them. To-day he is, in fact, introducing a glorified Boards of Guardians (Default) Bill—a Default Bill applying to the whole of London, a more extraordinary Measure, if that were possible, than the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act itself—a Bill for passing over the final financial control of all the boards of guardians in London who receive money from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund to the tender mercies of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. That is really the purpose of this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman puts a perfectly fair question as to whether we desire any kind of control, and whether we are prepared to accept any kind of control. I am prepared to say that we do accept the principle of control. We are perfectly willing to discuss ways and means of control. Our objection to this Bill is not that we object to there being some unified financial policy for the whole, of London. Our objection is, that we regard this as being one of the most unsuitable of all methods that might have
been devised. if the right lion. Gentleman is prepared to consider alternative methods of control, then we are prepared to consider with him what proposal we might make for dealing with this particular question. But we regard the Metropolitan Asylums Board as being an unsuitable body for this purpose. We have already been told that it consists of 55 representatives of boards of guardians and 18 nominated members. I must say that, having looked over the list of the 18 nominated members, I am not prepared to place any financial control in their hands at all. I look at their names and I look at their addresses, and I know perfectly well beforehand which way they are going to vote. The vast majority of those 18 nominated members will on all occasions vote with the 27 paying unions. So far from being equally divided, the Metropolitan Asylums Board on this question will consist of 28 unions who are receiving from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund and the vast majority of those who remain will be opponents of those receiving unions. To suggest that there can be fair, inde
Pendent treatment for the receiving unions from the Metropolitan Asylums Board is saying too much, because it is quite clear from the composition of that body that it is not likely to be able to give a square deal to the necessitous unions in the London area.
My second objection is this: The Metropolitan Asylums Board was established for specific purposes. It is perfectly true that certain of those purposes do touch Poor Law administration, but what is needed now is a body which has to exercise financial control. The fact that the Metropolitan Asylums Board is an admirable body for running fever hospitals and asylums for mentally deficient persons does not mean that the Metropolitan Asylums Board is fitted to exercise financial control, because as
understand it the new duty which is going to devolve on the Metropolitan Asylums Board as regards this matter is admittedly a financial question. I do not think that, from the point of view of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, the Metropolitan Asylums Board is any better than the Port of London Authority or any other London authority at the present time. Indeed, I should imagine that the Port of London Authority would even be a better body than the Metropolitan Asylums Board. We object, therefore, to this portion of the Bill which hands over very substantial powers to a body which is partly nominated and a body which, in any event, was set up for other purposes. If I understand the Bill aright, it means that the approved expenditure of receiving boards of guardians will be exempted from too close scrutiny from the District Auditor, but it is a direct hint to him to surcharge other expenditure, if there be any other expenditure. Although we are told that the estimates are to be submitted in a form to be prescribed by the Minister, I think the form matters a very great deal. It may very well be that outside the approved estimates of a particular board of guardians there may be during the current year perfectly legitimate additional expenditure which ought to fall on the Common Poor Fund and which certainly ought not to be subject to special scrutiny by the District Auditor.
Our main objection, however, to this Bill is that it does not deal with
what is the fundamental question. There have been times past when it was impossible to deal with the large issues. This is a Bill which is to be passed for the fifth time and is now to operate for five years—only five years, says the right hon. Gentleman—and we are promised in a very shadowy way that something in the interval may be done with the Poor Law system. It is the fifth time since the War that this Measure, or something like it, has been brought forward. This is the fifth time that this House has been called upon to deal with results rather than with causes. The disease from which London and the country as a whole is suffering was diagnosed by the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, which reported in 1909. That diagnosis was followed by a prescribed course of treatment. Nothing happened until in 1918 Sir Donald Maclean's Committee, accepting the previous diagnosis, made slight alterations in the form of treatment. Nothing happened even then. When the present right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) was Minister of Health in 1920, an announcement was made by the Government that something was to be done about this matter, but in the following year the same right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Health introduced the parent legislation of this particular Bill, the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Bill. That was a piece of emergency legislation. It was first aid legislation. We have been going on from that time until now with this first aid treatment of a serious problem, diagnosed nearly 20 years ago. That is a very serious state of affairs. Everyone has realised the importance of dealing with the fundamental root trouble, which is one of machinery and powers, both as regards the State and as regards local authorities.
I would like to carry the mind of the House back to the Debate on the introduction of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Bill. That Bill was introduced by the present Member for Carmarthen when Minister of Health. And the Noble Lord who is now President of the Board of Education used these words in the course of the 1921 Debate:
Six months ago the Minister of Health found himself in command of a thoroughly unseaworthy ship. It was unseaworthy enough before the War, but it has sprung many leaks since, and no one knows better
than the right hon. Gentleman that all that he is now doing by this Bill is to cover those leaks with another coat of paint.
He went on to deal with what was the real problem, and it remains the problem to-day:
There are four main questions with which I wish to deal. Some of them are London questions, others are general questions, and I wish to point out in regard to them that the Government has specifically in the case of London failed to do its duty during the last three years. The first is the general question of the government of greater London. The second is the question of the equalisation of the burden of poor relief—in the special case of London by the equalisation of rates as between boroughs, and in the country generally by grants-in-aid from national funds. The third question is that of the proper constitution of Poor Law authorities in the future, and the fourth is what authority is responsible for unemployment?
That was 7½ years ago. Noble Lord went on to ask for immediate action on the part of the Government to deal with these fundamental problems. He reminded the House that in May of the previous year, 1920, the Government had given an undertaking to deal with the problem. He concluded his speech with this statement:
This House must ask the Government, now that this Bill is before it, showing clearly the absolute ineffectiveness of the present system, for an assurance that these questions with regard to Poor Law authorities in the future, and the equalisation of the burden of poor relief between poor and rich authorities, and indeed the whole question of local government administration, shall he made the subject of early proposals by the Government; and when I say 'early' I hope it will he earlier than the immediate attention' which the Government of 5th May, 1920, was going to give to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 28th October, 1921; cols. 1225 and 1227. Vol. 147.]
With those words I agree. I do not saddle the present Minister of Health with responsibility for that situation. But here was a Member of the present Cabinet, presumably at that time a supporter of the Coalition Government, who felt called upon to make that very strong statement about the need for dealing with
the really fundamental question, and who regarded the Bill which was then before the House as a thing of shreds and patches. Then in 1923 the present Minister of Health re-introduced his Bill as the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill. It was passed. In the following year it was my duty to introduce
the same Measure from the Treasury Bench. I asked that the Bill should be passed for two years, and I was told by the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that that was an iniquitous suggestion. I had not one but 20 reasons given to me why the Bill should not be introduced for so long a period as two years. I was brought to book and was asked what the Government were going to do about the question of Poor Law reform. On the Second Reading of the present Bill I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary of what he said then, because what he said seems to me to be very wise indeed. These were his words:
The Minister of Health will he prepared himself to say that this can only be regarded as a stop-gap measure, and I hope he will expedite what is a very urgent matter.… I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that it is rather unfortunate that it should be intimated that we are not to have a reform of the Poor Law until 1926.
I had used the same argument as the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon—at the end of two years we might expect a reformed system. The Parliamentary Secretary concluded his speech on the Second Reading by saying:
I hope we shall have some intimation from him this afternoon that at a very early date he will bring in his proposals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1924; cols. 1239 and 1241, Vol. 170.]
That was four years ago. On the Report stage and Third Reading the present Parliamentary Secretary worked himself up into a state of moral fervour which I had never seen before and have not seen since. I did not expect that one of his normally placid temperament could have become so enthusiastic about the question of the break-up of the Poor Law and Poor Law reform. On the conclusion of his speech on the Third Reading he said:
I wish to register my protest against the third failure of the Government"—
I do not know what the other two were—
and that is to deal with Poor Law reform."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1924; col. 965, Vol. 173.]
In the course of that Debate I had undertaken, on behalf of the Government then, that the problem of the Poor Law was to be dealt with. We said, in effect, "We are getting tired of this first-aid treatment when a serious
surgical operation is needed." I was asked what we were going to do about it. I said we had already taken steps through the usual channels to get together—I think that is the proper phrase —representatives of the three political parties in the House for a, round-table conference, to see whether there could be an agreed measure. I am within the recollection of people who were then present in saying that that proposal was received very coldly. The Noble Earl, the present Under-Secretary of State for India, discovered an interest in the Poor Law, and waxed eloquent on the absurdity of dealing with it in this particular fashion. When the surgeon who was prepared to operate wanted the advice and co-operation of the people who thought they knew all about it, that advice was rejected, and the present Secretary of State for Air got up at the conclusion of the Debate and said: "Well it is all very well about this conference, but there is nothing to it, and we cannot touch it." So far as we were concerned in 1924—for eight months and not five years—our record is a little cleaner at any rate than that of the right hon. Gentleman.

Captain FRASER: What happened to the plan which was already made at the time of the election?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Health knows that the plan is there. He has got it.

Mr. HARRIS: Look in the pigeonholes.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Had there been any opportunity that question would have been proceeded with. The Bill of 1924 operated until 1926, and then the purist, of 1924, having changed his seat from the Opposition to the Government side of the House, introduced this same Measure again for two years, with lengthy arguments in favour of two years as against one. But the important feature of his speech in 1926 was his definite statement regarding the Poor Law. In commending the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill he used it as an argument for fobbing off the big question and the really powerful arguments of the whole of the local authorities in London, with this statement:
As the House knows, the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister have announced that next year we hope to bring in an important Bill dealing with the reform of the Poor Law, and we are now engaged upon the task of endeavouring to arrive at some form of agreement with the interested authorities, and we intend to make proposals to the House dealing with the whole matter next year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1926; col. 552, Vol. 193.]
It is true that before the introduction of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill of 1926 the Minister had issued his circular to various local authorities. But in 1926 nothing happened. Perhaps one could not expect anything to happen. But in 1927 we did expect that the Government would deal with this problem on a comprehensive basis. The matter was dropped; the
promise given was not fulfilled; and we arrive in 1928, when the question of Poor Law reform has slipped entirely into the background and has been forgotten. That has happened without any explanation to the House. We do not know whether it is that the right hon. Gentleman has fallen by the wayside or whether he has been pushed down into the ditch by the Cabinet. All we know is that the promise given and the hopes raised in 1926 have not been fulfilled, and that the present situation is to be stabilised for a further period of five years. The Minister can give us his long list of figures. Those figures do not prove anything. I have myself had some experience in the use of figures, and I am not inclined to attach too much importance to the right hon. Gentleman's figures of the number of people on outrelief. Figures or no figures, five years from now, unless the whole Poor Law system is dealt with, the situation will be precisely what it is to-day. There is a very striking passage in the Majority Report of the Poor Law Commission of 1909, which says:
The case for the abolition of boards of guardians has been more conclusively demonstrated in London than in any other part of the Kingdom.
That question still remains unsolved. If the right hon. Gentleman had fulfilled his promise in 1927, all he need have done to-day would have been to continue the Act for a further year. Instead of that, he is establishing a system for the financial
control of boards of guardians that are necessitous. That proposal is open to objection. If the necessitous boards of guardians drew 100 per cent. of their money from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, I could understand him putting the power almost entirely into the hands of an outside body, but it still remains true that in every case more than half the expenditure is met out of the rates. He said that from 30 per cent. to 48 per cent. of the expenditure of receiving unions comes from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. Yet, although it is only a fraction of less than half of their expenditure that comes out of the Common Poor Fund, for the next five years, and for another five years unless the Poor Law system is to be revised, the whole expenditure of these boards of guardians will be subject to the approval of an external authority. I submit that that is undemocratic and unconstitutional.
I have admitted the case for control. I would accept personally, and I believe my hon. Friends would, some body composed of representatives of the boards of guardians from the whole of London who understand what the problem is, and not the superannuated gentlemen who are on the Metropolitan Asylums Board. We could get financial control that way, but the proposal in the Bill simply renders the position worse. It is the third step of the right hon. Gentleman's downfall. His recent efforts at legislation have driven one inevitably to the conclusion that his policy is to restrict the right of local authorities to control their own work, if they are composed of his political opponents. The only moral of the table which he gave us was that where the figures had gone up most, the area was under a Labour Board of Guardians. That is the truth about it although he did not like to say so. He said that the expenditure had gone up and that the administration was lax, which probably meant that the guardians refused to allow hundreds of people to continue in hunger.
The whole case of the right hon. Gentleman in the table which he quoted was a case against his political opponents. I do not mind how hard he hits his political opponents, but to utilise legislation for the purpose of crippling the policy of political opponents, who represent a majority of the electors, is most unfair.
I do not suppose that we shall alter the right hon. Gentleman's view about the Bill, and I do not suppose that the Poor Law Reform Bill will appear before this Parliament. Therefore, we are left to look to some future Government to deal with a problem which this Government definitely undertook to see through. It is unfortunate that after seven years of this stop-gap emergency legislation, Parliament is again faced with another stop-gap Measure, which is to continue for another five years, without any specific undertaking and without any pledge that the great causes which have given rise to the situation are to be dealt with in a comprehensive Measure of reform.

Mr. NAYLOR: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman consulted the boards of guardians represented on the Metropolitan Asylums Board with a view to ascertaining whether or not they agree with this new-found principle of auditing accounts, before he came to the decision to introduce Clause 2. This particular Clause is entirely new so far as London administration is concerned. A few days ago, the Prime Minister outlined the policy of the present Government and suggested that what the Government were doing, or were about to do, would make democracy safe. I wonder whether this Bill is the first instalment of that policy of making democracy safe and whether the design of the Bill is to prevent democracy from getting proper expression in the form of local government when democracy happens to be in the majority.
I want to point out a few of the reasons why I think the Minister is illadvised in making the Metropolitan Asylums Board the arbitrators as to the particular form of expenditure and the amount of expenditure that the boards of guardians may be allowed to undertake. I want to make a point as to the unsuitability of the Metropolitan Asylums Board as the body to supervise and analyse the estimates for the boards of guardians. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the expenses of the Metropolitan Asylums Board have to be accepted, if not actually endorsed, by the boards of guardians themselves. The boards of guardians pass these precepts
on to the borough councils, accompanied by their own precepts. The Metropolitan Asylums Board has to obtain approval from its representatives on the boards of guardians of the proportion of expenditure that has to be undertaken by the Metropolitan Asylums Board.
This Bill says that although the expenditure of the Metropolitan Asylums Board has to pass through the hands of the boards of guardians, the expenditure of the boards of guardians has to pass through the hands of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. Does not that open the door to all sorts of malpractices, to mutual accommodation or mutual obstruction in the matter of the acceptance of financial responsibility? For instance, if a board of guardians were to pass on their estimates to the Metropolitan Asylums Board and that board declined to pass certain forms of the estimates to which the board of guardians thought they were entitled, are not the board of guardians likely to take up a similar attitude when the expenses of the Metropolitan Asylums Board have to be passed on to the borough council? Here you have two bodies which have to pass each other's accounts. It is not sound finance or sound public policy that in regard to financial transactions public bodies should have to pass each other's accounts in this way.
The Minister referred to the composition of the Metropolitan Asylums Board and suggested that it was equally balanced as between the receiving and the paying boards of guardians. So long as you have 18 members appointed and the other two are equal, it means that the deciding factor on the Metropolitan Asylums Board is not the boards of guardians but the 18 appointed members. You might as well say in the Bill, if the composition of the Metropolitan Asylums Board is to remain the same, as it will in all probability, for the next five years, that you will hand over the estimates of the boards of guardians to the present 18 appointed members or to 18 other appointed members, and say: "You will look after these estimates," rather than ask the representatives of the boards of guardians who sit on the Metropolitan Asylums Board to undertake the work. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell the House the nature of the representation on the Asylums Board. He said that there was a form of proportional representation,
and that the representation was according to the rateable value of the Poor Law district. That form of representation, to my mind, is disproportional representation.
A fairer method of representation on such a body, especially when it has to undertake business of this character, is not according to rateable value but population. When we compare the representation of some of the Poor Law districts with others, I think hon. Members will agree that there is something lacking as far as real representation goes on the Metropolitan Asylums Board. The City of Westminster, which has an estimated population of 139,000, has six representatives on the Metropolitan Asylums Board, while Fulham, with a population of 163,000, has one representative. The City of London, with 13,629 population, has a representation of five on the board, while Poplar, with a population of 168,000, has a representation of one. I do not call that proportional representation. I agree that so far as those duties are concerned which are common duties performed by the Metropolitan Asylums Board for the whole of London, and the Metropolitan Asylums Board is set up merely as a form of convenience for dealing with certain municipal services common to London, rateable value has to be considered, but I do not agree that rateable value comes in when it is a question of estimating and accounts, but the number of people who are affected by the Poor Law that is being administered at the present time.
In regard to Sub-section (1), the Minister said the estimates would be in such a form as the Minister of Health may prescribe. What is the special significance of that term? According to this Clause, the guardians are not to draw up their estimates in the way prescribed by law, but are to be subject to certain Regulations to be prescribed by the Minister. If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to reply to the Debate I hope he will make a note of this particular point, and let us know exactly what is meant by "any such form as the Minister of Health may prescribe." We want to know to what extent the Minister is going to interfere with the expenditure as well as the way in which that expenditure is to be met. Another point arises in regard to the position of the
district auditor. Let us suppose that the Metropolitan Asylums Board have power over certain estimates presented to them by boards of guardians, and that these estimates are returned and certified as correct. The money is spent. The district auditor comes along and finds that some of the expenditure, although passed by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, is illegal, and he takes his favourite method and surcharges someone.
If this Bill passes, and the Metropolitan Asylums Board are responsible in the first instance for passing the estimates which include this form of illegal expenditure, who is the district auditor going to surcharge? Is he going to surcharge the Metropolitan Asylums Board, the individual members, including the appointed representatives, or will he surcharge the members of the board of guardians which happens to be implicated in the illegal expenditure? That is an interesting point on which we should like further information. An hon. Member below me says that he surcharges the members who sign the cheques. That may be the case under the law as it stands at present, but a new law is being made, and I want to know what it means, whether the auditor is going to surcharge the Metropolitan Asylums Board or the board of guardians who are responsible in the last instance.
London has been looking for complete reform in its Poor Law administration, but this Bill, especially Clause 2, seems to take that prospect further away. It sets up a semi-demi authority on finance. It adds one more to the many authorities which now exist in London local government, as if we had not far too many already. Surely in a matter of this kind some consideration might have been given to the receiving boroughs with respect to the Metropolitan Asylums Board. If the Minister had wanted us to make this concession in Clause 2, surely it would not have been too much to suggest that the 9d. now charged should have been made 1s. That would have been a proposal which would have met with some support from this side, but we are asked to hand ourselves over; to crib, cabin and confine local guardians against forms of expenditure which up to now have been regarded as legal, but, possibly, under this Bill may not be so regarded.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated dissent.

Mr. NAYLOR: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I hope that is true, but we know perfectly well that Bills are passed in this House on which Ministers give us an assurance that they do not mean this and they do not mean that, only to find that when the law is administered in the Courts it is something different and something worse. It is the old story over again; you are aiming at the poorer districts. you are making their sufferings appear a crime, as if the greater expenditure in certain districts of London has been brought about entirely because of the extravagance of local boards of guardians. There was an implication of that in the right hon. Gentleman's speech in introducing this Bill. He suggested that because the expenditure in certain districts had risen, and risen again, that therefore there must be something radically wrong in the administration of that particular district. It may be that the relief granted in these districts was higher than the Minister thought should have been paid, but that only affects the total to a slight degree. What affects the total expenditure more than anything else, and will always affect it, is the large amount of poverty, well marked and clearly defined in certain of the poorer districts in London as compared with the better-off districts close to them. The guardians responsible for these poorer districts deserve the help if not the sympathy of the Minister, instead of which they have seen nothing but the big stick in his hand every time they make an effort to put things right. I do not see how this House can conscientiously agree to Clause 2, and if there is to be any consideration at all of the Bill on its merits, it can only be in relation to the opinion of the House on Clause 2. I submit that it is an unbusinesslike proposition—that the Metropolitan Asylums Board is not the fit and proper authority to undertake this work, that they themselves are representative of the guardians, and, therefore, should not be in the position of being able to analyse the estimates of the guardians. I support the Amendment that the Bill should he sent back for revision.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I think, quite contrary to the apprehensions
of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, that the House will welcome this Bill providing machinery for the better administration and distribution of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. Both the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment mentioned that he had no objection to the principle of control. The control which it is proposed to exercise under this Bill is not control over the financial operations of the guardians in the distribution of the funds raised by themselves, but that someone should exercise control in the interests of London as a whole of the funds raised from the whole of London. I would also observe that while a good many criticisms have been offered with regard to the choice of the Metropolitan Asylums Board as the instrument for the reform which the right hon. Gentleman is introducing no alternative suggestion has been offered as to how the present emergency should be dealt with. But everyone knows that we have not yet received the final proposals of the Ministry for the reform of the Poor Law, and until that can be brought about, until it can be brought effectively into operation, certain steps are urgently necessary in order to deal effectively with circumstances for which reform is practically admitted on all sides. Having said that in regard to the general welcome which I feel sure the House will extend to this Bill, I should like to ask the Minister two questions in regard to its provisions. Clause 2, Sub-section (2) reads thus:
the Metropolitan Asylum Board shall approve the estimates of the amounts repayable out of the Metropolitan common poor fund either as submitted or subject to such reduction (if any) in respect of any specified purpose as the Metropolitan Asylum Board may think fit to make.
I want to ask the Minister whether the effect of this is that the Metropolitan Asylums Board will have power to reduce estimates sent up in certain respects if judged desirable, and, further, what machinery will he placed at the disposal of the Metropolitan Asylums Board for the acquisition of information or inspection. Will it be able to secure the guidance of Government inspectors, will it be furnished with their reports, or is it suggested that it should set up machinery of inspection of its own? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to give the House information on these two points. I welcome
the Bill and I trust it will receive the approval of the House and will assist in the better administration of the fund which is judged to be necessary.

Mr. HARRIS: We understand now why the Minister has taken this particular course. The hon. and gallant Member for Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) on behalf of the London Conservative Members has given the Bill his blessing, and stabilises our present Poor Law system in London. That is what it amounts to. Five years is a considerable period. We understand now why the Poor Law system has not been tackled. It is not because the Minister of Health is not desirous of doing so, or because he does not understand the question. No one has been a greater student of the problem of local government than the right hon. Gentleman, and his Parliamentary Secretary. It is because his Tory supporters in London are not prepares to give him the necessary backing. If he could be assured that he had the support of his party in London I am satisfied that a Bill would be forthcoming. The Minister in his usual lucid way—whatever faults he may have no one can accuse him of not being clear minded—referred to the problem of London and said that it has a problem of its own. That is the reason why we have to have special Bills every few years. It ought not to be so. There is no special reason why London should not have the same form of government and the same administrative machinery as any other great city.
Take, for example, Birmingham, of which the Minister is such a distinguished representative. It is true that he is changing from one of its divisions to another, but he is still loyal to the city which his family has graced for so many years. Could the right hon. Gentleman imagine a Bill of this kind being tolerated for one moment in Birmingham? Could he imagine a conglomeration of authorities and a complex system like this being planted on Birmingham? But, after all, if it is good for London why should it not be good for Birmingham? London is still more important as a city than Birmingham, and London has an equal right to proper treatment in this matter. The present situation in London is due to the fact that the City of London has always refused to extend its borders. It
has always taken a selfish attitude towards local government. If the same thing had occurred in Birmingham, they might have all this machinery to deal with their problems there. I represent a borough which is just outside the City of London and nearly all my constituents work in or adjacent to the City. There are clerks, warehousemen, packers, street traders and other workers, and the majority of them are connected with "the one square mile." They have been gradually pushed outside the City walls to make room for banks, offices and business premises, and they have been pushed into a comparatively poor district.
I have been studying the comparative statistics of the City of London and the borough of Bethnal Green. Curiously enough the actual geographical area is about the same in both cases, but they are not alike in population or in the number of poor. It is, no doubt, very satisfactory to the Minister in his official capacity to know that in the City of London on 1st January, 1926, the total number in receipt of relief was 425. In Bethnal Green on the same day the number in receipt of relief was over 10,000, and of these nearly 8,000 were in receipt of relief because of unemployment. In the City of London only 91 were in receipt of relief on account of unemployment The night population of the City of London is only 13,000, while the night population of Bethnal Green—consisting almost entirely of people working in the trades and industries of the City of London—is 117,000. That is the problem which the Minister and this House have to face. The assessable value of Bethnal Green is £5 per head of the population. The assessable value of the City of London is £486 per head of the population. If you levy a penny rate in Bethnal Green, it only brings in £2,600; whereas in the City of London a penny rate brings in £32,000. The consequence is that they have low rates in the City of London. The City can hold up its head with pride and hon. Members can glorify the economy of the City, because, forsooth, it has a rate of only 9s. in the £, while Bethnal Green's rate is 22s. in the £.
It is, however, a mistake to think that the City is economical. On the contrary, they throw their money about there on street lighting, street maintenance, street cleansing, as well as banqueting and
other luxuries of that kind. They have the advantage of accumulated money which belongs really not to the City of London but to the people of London as a whole. That is the problem which successive Governments have had to face, and all have run away from it. No one has had the courage to tackle it. They are all afraid of the City of London with its immense powers, its City guilds, its State banquets, its Mansion House and its Guildhall. Any Minister who seeks to tackle this problem is quickly persuaded to come to a dinner and, somehow or other, his enthusiasm begins to wane.

Mr. RYE: Does the cost of the City banquets come out of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund?

Mr. HARRIS: I do not say that at all. I was just going to remind the Minister of a dinner which I attended and at which he was also a guest. I remember enjoying that occasion particularly because of the right hon. Gentleman's very charming and attractive speech. I am too modest to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman remembers my speech. It was a dinner in connection with local government officers in London—very able and competent officials they are—and I stated that if the Minister would produce a Bill, which would really tackle this problem, then, whatever my party did, I would give him my support. I believe had the right hon. Gentleman produced such a Bill he would have had the support of the majority of Members of this House, but he allowed his coattails to be pulled by some of his supporters. He saw the light but he had not the courage to follow it and that is why we have the present Bill. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment—with which, substantially, I agree—referred to the Royal Commission on the Poor Law. I suppose that Commission's Report is now almost dead and buried. I should be the last to ask for another Royal Commission, knowing that that is a method of shelving problems, but at the same time, that Commission was composed of very able men and I would quote again some words which have already been quoted—with certain additional words which were not quoted. The Commission said:
The case for the abolition of the boards of guardians has been more conclusively demonstrated
in London than in any part of the Kingdom. The first reform necessary, in our judgment, is the total abolition of the present boards of guardians and the establishment of a unified London for all purposes of public assistance.
That was in 1909 and, as I understand it, the Minister accepts those principles. I have here an excellent memorandum which was issued on the subject by the right hon. Gentleman. Like everything emanating from his pen, it is very lucid, clear and precise and based on sound principles. Whatever quarrel we may have with the right hon. Gentleman, we recognise that he is an expert in local government. This memorandum is dated 1925 and can be bought for 2d. It is not very expensive—evidently the right hon. Gentleman was anxious that it, should be circulated broadcast. It came to me in my capacity as a member of the London County Council and the right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten the fact that it was accepted, with practical unanimity, by the elected representatives of the people of London in the London County Council. The first line dealing with London contains the words,
boards of guardians to be abolished.
Now the Minister comes along with this Bill to entrench the boards of guardians and strengthen their position. In the very next paragraph we find the words,
relief of the able-bodied to be correlated with unemployment insurance.
Has the right hon. Gentleman had any reason to depart from those principles? We have had a Measure dealing with the system of unemployment insurance and, no doubt from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, strengthening the weak spots and bringing it up to date, but in the light of experience, why is he running away in 1928 From his memorandum of 1925? Is it possible that he has not the courage, or is it because he has not the backing of his own Government and his followers? Does the right hon. Gentleman now want the Poor Law guardians to remain? He made reference to the Poor Law union of the district which I represent. In Bethnal Green we have very bitter political fights. I have been through one in the last week or two, when we had no fewer than four parties contesting the honour of representing the borough. We are not without party differences and political propaganda, but the Minister knows, or
ought to know, that in Bethnal Green the present guardians are not elected on a party footing at all. They are mostly either ministers of religion or social workers like the head of Oxford House, who are above party, and they have given the most unselfish and devoted service to the care of the poor, the sick and infirm, the unemployed and, particularly, the children. They have endeavoured, with all their skill and capacity, to discharge very difficult duties, but they have come to the conclusion that the machinery is wrong, and that it is not fair that an area so small, so poor, and with so many different problems, should have the whole responsibility of dealing with this matter, as it must if the present system is continued. Of course such a system must endure if we are going to keep our present Poor Law—I go further and say it will have to be extended.
The system is fundamentally wrong. It is not on sound principles of finance. It is not right, in principle, to take money from one district and hand it over to another district to be spent there. That course must lead to suspicion, however careful the guardians may be. The guardians in my own borough are most careful custodians of the money in their charge and give devoted service, but, however devoted they may be, there must always be suspicion, as they are not responsible to the electors who have raised the money. The Minister must know that the system is indefensible, and he should have had the courage to produce a Bill on the lines previously indicated. He cannot say that he has not time. He said so in 1926. Last year he made the excuse that the general strike—or lockout—had altered things, and that he had to deal with other problems arising from the trade dispute. But he promised a Bill in 1928. No one can say now that Parliament is too busy. I am all in favour of the "flapper" vote. That is not a question of bitter political controversy, and that is the only big Bill which the Government have been able to produce.
There is plenty of time in this Session of Parliament to deal with this question scientifically and thoroughly on the lines of the right hon. Gentleman's own memorandum. A good many of my friends here accept the principle of his memorandum.
It is true that it is always possible to amend arid improve a Measure—that is the function of the House of Commons—but the principles I have mentioned are those for which the Liberal party has voted for many years. We always contended that the Poor Law was all right in 1832. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I will correct myself there and make myself clear. It might have been all right in 1832, but it is quite unsuited to us in the twentieth century. It offends all sound principles of both legislation and administration.
The Education Act of 1870 altered the whole position of the child. In 1832 there was no proper machinery for dealing with the care of the child, but since 1870 there has been built up the organisation of the education authorities, which has been gradually extended, in the light of experience, till you get to the Act of 1918, put into one form by the Act of 1921. The child should go out of the Poor Law entirely into the hands of the education authorities. Even now many of the children have been taken out of the Poor Law institutions and are being trained in the ordinary schools. That is a great improvement, but they should go right out of the Poor Law. It is the same with the old people. In 1832 there were no old age pensions, but now the old age, pension machinery recognises the obligation of the State to the old people, and that has been extended by the Contributory Pensions Act, which lowered the age and brought in a large number of additional people. Then we come to the sick. We have all this paraphernalia of Poor Law hospitals, but the idea of a Poor Law hospital is wrong, as is recognised, because many of the Poor Law infirmaries are now calling themselves hospitals. But the local authorities and borough councils are building up a whole system of public health to deal with sickness and disease alongside of health insurance, and it is an anomaly that Poor Law authorities should be dealing with sickness at all. The sickness authorities should be the local councils, correlated, if you like, with the whole system of health insurance.
With the old people gone, with the children gone, and with the sick gone, what is there left for these anomalous bodies to do? There is only the able-bodied poor, but we have been gradually
building up a system of National Unemployment Insurance, working through the Employment Exchanges. I see almost every day down in Bethnal Green the absurdity of a man who is out of work being chivvied and chased between the Employment Exchange and the Poor Law union. For so many months he becomes a child of the nation as a whole, and then the next month he is suddenly shoved on to the Poor Law authority, which is not anxious to receive him, but is only desirous of pushing him back again on to the State. I say that, owing to the existence of this organisation of National Unemployment Insurance, the Poor Law guardians have become an absurdity.
However, the Minister is nothing if not ingenious, and he has now brought in another Bill. I remember Mr. Burns saying of the "M.A.B.," as we call it familiarly in London, that he had it on his list, and it never would be missed. It is certainly a very antiquated, old-fashioned authority. The Government have a great affection for boards, and I believe that if they had their way they would board London up. There is the Water Board, one of these Conservative creations, the Traffic Board, which was a Labour Government creation taken over from the Tory party, and now they are going to strengthen the foundations of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. If this is really the right authority, why not give them the whole responsibility? How absurd it is to make an authority that is elected and nominated in such a complex and underground way the authority to supervise a lot of elected councils. It, simply will not work, but will lead to friction and to wire-pulling, and in the end it must break down. My quarrel with the Minister is that he has sinned against the light. He knew well enough the right thing to do, and he knows it now, and I say that it is unfortunate that a Minister with his history, his tradition, his training and his knowledge should produce at this time of day a Bill of this character, that does not deal with the question but only postpones a problem which sooner or later must be dealt with on proper and sound lines.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: The subject under discussion to-day is one of particular interest to London
Members,
and I think I may say for the Members of the Conservative party that on the whole we are not at all satisfied with the way in which the administration of Poor Law relief is carried on. One speaker said that the Minister of Health, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, hinted that the administration was not all that it might be in some of these areas which spend so much money. I do not know why my right hon. Friend merely hinted that, because I think it is only fair to say that a great many Members on this side think the administration is not all that it should be, an opinion which is to a great extent backed up by reports which have appeared from time to time from the Inspectors of the Ministry of Health. Frankly, I am sorry that the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act could not have been brought into operation on certain occasions in London as well as in the country, because the working of that Act—and we have discussed it on more than one occasion in this House—has shown that there were very glaring instances of maladministration in the three areas, Bedwellty, Chester-le-Street and West Ham, and that the taking over of those areas had a very good effect, not only among the people who were taken over, but also in adjoining areas, which saw what was being done.
When we look at some of these areas which are what we might call receiving areas, we find that in Bermondsey there are nearly 17,000, out of a population of 110,000, on Poor Law relief; in Deptford one in 15 is on Poor Law relief; in Greenwich one in 18: and in Shoreditch one in 12. Take the Report of the inspectors in regard to another two areas which are receiving and not paying areas. Take Southwark, where a return made by the guardians on 22nd June stated that of 1,258 able-bodied men, then receiving relief, 391 had been in receipt of it for between one and three years, 96 for more than three years, and 113 for more than four years. The inspector stated:
Among the long-standing cases included in these figures, there are individuals noted on the guardians' records as idle and indolent men, who are satisfied with the relief they obtain, and do not genuinely seek employment.
That is why, when these reports are made, we feel that something should be
done as regards the administration of these areas. Take the Woolwich area, of which I have some slight knowledge, having sat for the London County Council there and failed to get in. The inspector reported there:
The expenditure of the Woolwich Guardians on outdoor relief is at the rate of £140,000 per year, which represents one-half of the total expenditure. One-third of their outdoor relief is given to able-bodied persons in contravention of the Relief Regulation Order, 1911.… Where nearly £50,000 per year is spent on outdoor relief to able-bodied persons, and, having regard to the serious problems of public interest that are affected by this branch of Poor Law administration, it is of the first importance that the relief committees should be fully attended. In the year ended 31st March last, however, out of 23 guardians available for 27 relief committee meetings, four guardians only attended once, four attended less than 10 times, four less than 20 times, with the result that there were numerous occasions when there was not the prescribed quorum.
There are innumerable cases to show that some of us on this side have good ground to suspect that the administration in these areas is not all that it might be. The trouble, and what we are trying to get over here, is the fact that other areas have to pay money towards what we call these badly-administered areas, but have no say whatsoever in how the money is spent. The Minister of Health mentioned an enormous increase lately in the money given by, comparatively speaking, rich areas to the Common Poor Fund. The City of London, which in 1920–21 gave £261,000 had risen in 1927–28 to £874,000, and Holborn had risen from £5,000 to £143,000. Of the areas to which the money was given, during the same year, in 1920–21, Poplar had risen from £64,000 to £564,000, and Bethnal Green from £49,000 to £218,000, and I could give many more figures to show the enormous increase—

Miss LAWRENCE: What did the hon. and gallant Member say Poplar received?

Captain HUDSON: £64,000 in 1920–21 and £564,000 in 1927–28. The point of this is that we feel that he who pays the piper should call the tune and that these areas should, when they are rated out of all proportion for the Common Poor Fund, have some means of seeing that that money is not rashly spent. Equalisation is absolutely necessary, and I do not believe there is a single Member on this
side who is against the richer boroughs looking after their poorer brethren, but they want to see that the money is properly spent.
One word as to the suitability of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. It is, as many hon. Members have said, rather unfortunate that its name includes the word "asylums." They are used perhaps to seeing strange things happen, but I am sure that when they go into the administration of some of these boroughs they will see stranger things than they ever saw in an asylum. You have to consider, in trying to get a body to administer a fund to look after this money, what other body could have done it. The London County Council already have an enormous amount of work, almost more than they can do, and the same remark applies to the borough councils, which in many cases have not the time to take on such a very large job as this. There is also another great disadvantage, and that is that both the London County Council and the borough councils are elected bodies, and I think it would be a great pity if this controlling body was a body elected by those who wore going to be the recipients of the money which they raised. I make no secret of the fact that I wish that in this Franchise Bill there had been a disqualification of recipients of Poor Law relief. In fact, I had a Motion on the Paper last Session to discuss that matter, but unfortunately time did not permit of its being moved.

Mr. LANSBURY: Would you also disqualify from voting the potential beneficiaries of safeguarding?

6.0 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: I would not,
because I think they are not parallel cases at all. I say that the man who receives actual money from the State for nothing should not vote for the guardians who actually pass him that money. I cannot pursue that point except to say that I consider the Metropolitan
Asylums Board, not being a directly elected body, is a suitable body to carry out this particular duty. The hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor), who seconded the Amendment, said that he understood the Board was under some system of proportional representation, and that the members were returned according to the amount of wealth of the areas concerned.
I did not know that until he said it, but I cannot conceive any more suitable system, because the people who give to the Poor Fund have to see that it is wisely administered. As for the 18 members who are nominated by the Minister of Health, they are public-spirited people who simply go on to the Board in order to do what they can in a duty which is very useful and which brings very little praise; nobody really knows exactly how much work they have to do. The Minister has chosen a very suitable body for dealing with a difficult situation. It was mentioned that this Bill might be called a stop-gap. The whole system of Poor Law will, sooner or later, have to be dealt with. It is not dealt with more quickly because we cannot get agreement. outside the House as to the way to do it. This Bill is a step in the right direction. It is morally right that, when large sums of money are spent, there should be adequate control. That principle is carried into effect by this Bill, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading and pass it into law at the earliest possible moment.

Miss LAWRENCE: The speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down rather amused me. In giving his views about the Poor Law he not only trod on the Minority and Majority Reports of the Poor Law Commission of 1909; and of that of the Maclean Committee; not only did he not know that the London County Council had accepted unanimously the principle of the Maclean Report, but he trampled on the Minister's own Bill which has been circulated. He did not want an elected authority; he did not want the London County Council to do it; he wanted this special secondary elected authority to do it. He went against every constructive Clause of the Bill which the Minister himself has circulated. He can settle that little matter of difference with the Minister. I have no doubt that the Minister, or the Under-Secretary, or one of the officials, will explain to him what are the ultimate principles of Poor Law reform of the Conservative party. We have had an extraordinary profusion of little Poor Law Bills in the House. Three months do not pass without the Minister of Health bringing us some little Poor Law Measure,
and they all bear a family likeness. The reason is not very far to seek; it is because they are all stop-gap Measures.
The Minister of Health, almost alone in the Cabinet, has never had charge of a big Bill in this House. It is a curious thing, because the opportunity is not wanting. The whole country is calling aloud for a reform of the Poor Law and of local taxation. It is not because there is no interest in the matter. Not merely local administrators, but captains of industry and the man-in-the-street, are talking of the burden of local rates. It is not that there is not electioneering capital to be got out of it. So great was the Government's concern, that in the King's Speech they had to reassure the electors that the Cabinet would inquire into the Minister of Health's Department. It is not even that the Minister of Health has not turned his attention to the matter. Two years ago nobody spoke so loudly and repeatedly on the sound principles of Poor Law reform as the Minister of Health, and yet at this day, in a most powerful Government, we are still in the stage of stop-gap Measures.
It is a strange thing, because the right hon. Gentleman knows a good deal about local government. He is a very ingenious and an industrious man, but a man who, somehow or other, cannot get things done. When he has the opportunity, when the whole country is looking to him for a lead to reform on one of the most important questions, we get nothing but silence from him. The truth is that he is not a good fighter unless he has got a very weak opponent. He likes to play the great Roman Statesman when he is dealing with one little board of guardians, but, when there is a hint of trouble, he shies away from it. He dropped Poor Law reform because there was some trouble about it in the country. He cannot even bring in a Valuation Bill for London, for as the Parliamentary Secretary explained, it might be that, in spite of the assurances of the London County Council and the borough councils, some Member of Parliament would make a speech against it; and so London rating, which is not a little thing, has had to drop. We now have the sixth or seventh little stop-gap Measure, which is designed to patch up a fundamental difficulty which could only be dealt with by
a big Bill. For some reason or other, the Minister dislikes the trouble of having to force a big Bill through the House. This Bill is a bad stop-gap Bill.
I want to address the attention of Members to Clause 1, which the Minister passed over in silence, because it is an important Clause. That Clause extends the borrowing powers under the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921. These powers are, roughly, that where a board of guardians cannot meet its current expenses out of rates, it may borrow with the consent of the Minister under the conditions set out in the Schedule. That was in 1921 and 1923 a very strange and anomalous principle of local finance, and it has been operated to such an extent that nearly half of England and Wales is borrowing for purposes of current expenditure. The last time I looked at the list, £14,000,000 had been authorised and £10,000,000 had been borrowed. This is as bad a piece of administration and as dangerous a thing to local finance as can be imagined. It is running through all local government. These local authorities have pledged the resources of their ratepayers for many years ahead. These frightful sums of £10,000,000 and £14,000,000 are not spread over the country as a whole; they are concentrated in industrial districts in proportion to their depression and their poverty. It is a danger of which Members of the House have frequently spoken. It is a thing which is producing very great depression in our industrial life. It is the reason the new industries that are springing up are coining south of a certain line—the line of depression.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: To what section is the hon. Member referring?

Miss LAWRENCE: The continuation of the provisions of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921, which enables the Minister to extend the time within which sums borrowed under Section 3 are to be repaid and so forth. These are provisions which make possible that very great debt which the necessitous areas now have, and the proposal is, I understand, to extend these provisions for another five years and to allow them to borrow for an unlimited time within the Minister's discretion.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not unlimited.

Miss LAWRENCE: It is unlimited at the Minister's discretion; it is not definitely limited.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not to exceed 10 years.

Miss LAWRENCE: But the Minister can, when the sums come up for review, make a fresh loan with which to repay the old loan. This plan of ladling out money is a great danger, and it is a pity that we should extend a very unsatisfactory system for five years. London administration and finance are in an extremely unsatisfactory and chaotic condition. That is no new discovery. It was said in 1909 and 1913; it has been said by the London County Council and by the Labour party in many publications. London is in a shocking state, both financially and administratively. The total expenditure of boards of guardians is somewhere over £7,000,000, and the total amount chargeable on the Fund is well over £5,000,000. That means that, with regard to over 80 per cent. of their expenditure, they are relieved from real responsibility. It works both ways. It works to the boroughs which are charged, as well as the boroughs which receive. If so much is allocated, and so much taken from the other boroughs in proportion to your rateable value, it has the same effect of taking direct financial responsibility off your shoulders. It is a shocking thing. It is a bad thing that the raising of local money should be divorced from all control over expenditure.
The scandal is not so great in regard to the receiving boroughs. If they were receiving 50 per cent. from the Government, nobody would say that they had not sufficient interest in their administration, but it is the case that the receiving boroughs are not free from all forms of responsibility any more than the schools are. The case of the paying boroughs is very hard indeed. It is a very bad plan to use local rates for purposes over which those who pay the rates have no control. It is a vicious plan. The second bad point is that there are no uniform rules of administration, particularly with regard to out-relief. Take the, case of two boroughs, very much of the same character in municipal life, both of them paying boroughs, the borough of Holborn and the borough of
Kensington. Note the number of men relieved on account of unemployment, that is, the heads of families. Holborn relieves 444 men, and Kensington 14. Those were the figures on 1st January, 1926. I ask boards of guardians whether they desire no men to be relieved on account of unemployment, as is practically the case in Kensington, or whether they desire to do something along the lines followed in Holborn. In Holborn 151 able-bodied widows and in Kensington one solitary able-bodied widow were in receipt of out-relief on 1st January, 1926. Then take the children of widows. Holborn, which is a very careful, prudent union, with a small amount of poverty, was relieving 381 children. Kensington—the Royal borough—with its bitter poverty, was relieving four. The Minister said that if some boards of guardians followed a practice different from that of others, and costing more, then the union ought to pay more. In practice all differ from one another.
There is no general rule in London about even the widows and children, and I think that is a very great evil. Not merely we of the Labour party, but the London County Council, the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, and even the Minister in his draft Bill, have all expressed disapproval of the extraordinary confusion in London. The Minister asked us what we want. We want the Maclean Report. I want the Maclean Report because, amongst other reasons, I do not want the work of dealing with the unemployed and with the widows and the sick to be lumped together. The widows and the sick require treatment which is diametrically opposite to what is necessary in the case of unemployed men, and we only create horrible confusion by mixing them up. That is a point upon which all who have ever dealt with the poor agree. There ought to be two authorities, one a committee for the sick, the helpless and the children, and another committee, of county size, to deal with the unemployed.
It is now proposed to put the whole of this business on to the Metropolitan Asylums Board. I have several things against the Metropolitan Asylums Board. The Minister said it represented both the paying and the non-paying boroughs, but, in addition to their representatives,
it includes 18 nominees of the Minister. Another thing against the Metropolitan Asylums Board is that they have no staff with which to do the work. The only thing approaching to out-relief work which they have ever done is dealing with casuals; and according to the last figures I have looked up they deal with only between 500 and 600 casuals in all. They have no staff with which to make the necessary inquiries into cases, though it is necessary to have committees in the different areas to look after the sick and the decrepit, because each of their cases needs careful inquiry. The Royal Commission spoke of the fallacy of dealing with such cases by general rules; they need individual attention. Another thing was that the Metropolitan Asylums Board were to exercise control by approving estimates. That is a vicious plan. If there was a central committee whose business it was to lay down the rules and formulate the policy, and then prepare estimates on that policy, I could agree, because estimates must follow the broad lines of policy of the body responsible. But you get no effective control from criticising 28 different sets of estimates, each based upon a different policy. It would be too complicated. I do not believe the Treasury could do it. You could not do it, because there would not be the data with which to check the expenditure. The opportunity to check the expenditure comes when you formulate your policy and prepare the estimates.
I have said that in the case of London, I want to have a county committee dealing with the relief of the unemployed—the county council have accepted that plan—and laying down the rules by which the metropolitan borough councils should administer Poor Law out-relief. That could be done if there were a central body to lay down rules. "But,'' the Minister will say, "I cannot introduce a Poor Law Reform Bill"—and I believe him! I do not think he is the man for the job. I believe he will never introduce Poor Law reform, and I want some stop-gap Measure to satisfy the perfectly legitimate demands of Westminster and Marylebone and the City and the other paying districts. The Minister could make London into one district for out-relief if he were pleased to do so. He could do that just as readily as London
was made into one district for casual poor. He could introduce a short Bill to dive that united district the task of superintending the grants from the Common Poor Fund. Then, instead of having a body divorced from practical administration, and without competent officials, we should have the guardians of London forming a joint committee for the purpose of dealing with
out-relief. That committee would not be staffless, but would have the services of all the clerks to the guardians in London, and could call for reports from every one of the relieving officers, thus obtaining all the information required. That committee would be able not merely to criticise the estimates, but, with full knowledge, would be able to lay down the lines of a policy. The paying boroughs would have their proper place on that committee, where their administrators would sit on equal terms with those from the receiving boroughs. We may quarrel about these things in this House, but we can do them when it comes to the localities. When we from Poplar, after we had been in prison, went to Westminster and put to them our case that we could not raise the rates demanded, we had not the slightest difficulty in agreeing with Westminster about a contribution. I have always thought that Westminster in 1921 showed real statesmanship, but they firmly believed that they were only going into this scheme for a temporary period.
I would ask my fellow Londoners whether they really want the Metropolitan Asylums Board, from the depths of its ignorance, to criticise their estimates? They would not think it an agreeable thing to have to hand over the best part of their administration to a body so understaffed, so inexperienced and so unfitted for the work. I hope the London Members will make common cause against this Clause in the Bill. We all agree that we desire a central authority for London, we all agree that diversity of administration is a great nuisance and a great wrong to the citizens and the recipients alike, and we all agree that it is a disgraceful thing to have to pay the piper and have no voice in calling the
tune; but at the same time, I suggest that to set up the Metropolitan Asylums Board over all the guardians is as bad a device as could well be suggested. I
would ask those who are in substantial agreement with me whether they will not unite with me to get a united district out of the Minister, and give that united district the power to administer a common fund for out-relief. Then we could all lie down together, knowing that we had simplified the position with regard to out-relief.

Mr. GATES: With much that the hon. Lady the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) has said I am in cordial agreement. As one representing a borough which, with Westminster, had much to do with inaugurating the 1921 Act, I am not going away from the principle that the richer boroughs ought to make a substantial contribution to the emergency expenses of the poorer boroughs. In 1921, the borough I represent agreed to make such a substantial contribution, but they had no idea that the obligation was to be continued for such a long time. No doubt they were beguiled by the eloquence of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). They understood it was an emergency, and they were only too ready to help him to foot the bill. The time has come in their opinion, and in the opinion of the Borough of Kensington, when a halt should be called to the amount they have to provide for an administration over which they have no control. The Borough of Kensington has to contribute a sum equivalent to a rate of 1s. 6d. in the which is distributed through the Common Poor Fund to Poplar and other districts. In the opinion of the Borough of Bensington, this money is spent in lavish outdoor relief and, to a large extent, in a way which demoralises the people of those districts.
When the Act of 1921 was passed, we agreed to the charge for indoor relief being raised from 5d. to 1s. 3d. At that time there was a condition attached to outdoor relief expenses which were chargeable that they should be in accordance with scales and regulations drawn up by the Minister of Health. When the 1923 Act was passed, it stabilised the outdoor relief expenses at9d.per head, and we heard no more of the regulations or of the scales. At the present time the relief is administered on an exceedingly lavish scale which the Borough of Kensington would be ashamed to adopt. The hon. Member for East Ham North has referred
to cases of outdoor relief in Kensington. I say at once that the Guardians of Kensington make the strictest inquiry into all cases of outdoor relief, and they see whether there are relations who can help. In consequence of this strict investigation the charges for outdoor relief in Kensington are amongst the lowest in London. We pride ourselves, not upon being hard-hearted, but upon having a strict administration that is fair and just to the ratepayers of the borough.
I do not welcome this Bill, and I think it is a poor thing. To a great extent, I agree with the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) that the time has come when there should be a real reform of the Poor Law. Both the central and local authorities are in agreement that there should be a real reform of the Poor Law. I am not enamoured with the authority set up by this Bill to deal with the estimates of the guardians; and still less do I approve of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, which is the authority set up, being charged with this duty for so long a term as five years. I have some admiration for the work done by the Metropolitan Asylums Board in dealing with fever hospitals, casual wards and other duties, but, after all, the greater part of the members of that body are appointed by the boards of guardians, and I should have thought that that was not the best authority to supervise the expenditure of the guardians. I would prefer the appointment of a small special committee like that which the Minister has placed in charge of the administration of the Poor Law in West Ham, Chester-le-Street and other boards of guardians in the country. Those special committees consist of officials who have rendered very great service in the administration of the Poor Law and they have added to the tone and spirit of the locality.
I do not understand what the Metropolitan Asylums Board are going to do with the estimates of the boards of guardians. I am sorry that I was not in the House when the Minister of Health made his opening speech, but as I understand the question, what they are to do is largely a matter of arithmetic. I understand they are to
receive the estimates in such a form as the Minister of Health may prescribe and they have to report to him what expenditure they propose to incur. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some idea of what that means. As far as I can see, it means very little. Speaking from the point of view of one of the contributory boroughs, I should think it means that it would not prevent boards of guardians continuing their extravagant expenditure, spending their money in a haphazard way, and giving the fullest measure of relief to every unemployed person. This Bill does not give the Metropolitan Asylums Board any power to deal with the various questions affecting the control of the administration of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. Does this Bill mean that the new body which is to be set up will be able to deal with the able-bodied people in some of the districts? Will it be able to deal with those boards of guardians who supplement from the rates the money which is drawn from the Unemployment Fund? In many boroughs where outdoor relief has been distributed indiscriminately to people who have been convicted and who live in common lodging-houses, will it enable the Metropolitan Asylums Board to prevent boards of guardians dealing with people of that kind? Unless it does, the control of the Metropolitan Asylums Board is absolutely illusory. Does the Bill enable the new body which is to he set up to deal with the scales of relief which are now fixed at 9d. a day for outdoor relief and ls. 3d. per day for indoor relief? Those scales were fixed some years ago, and the cost of living has gone down since that time by about 50 per cent. Would it not be right and fair that those scales should be reduced. Not long ago a deputation waited upon the right hon. Gentleman in order to impress this point upon him, and they received a very courteous reply. It is not clear in the provisions of the Bill whether the Metropolitan Asylums Board are to have power to deal with the scales of outdoor relief.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The Minister of Health went very thoroughly into both those points, and it is rather unfortunate that the hon. Member was not in the House to hear what my right hon. Friend said.

Mr. GATES: I think I have now raised all the points I wish to raise. I regret that the Bill is drawn up on its present lines. I am not prepared to vote for the Amendment, and I shall certainly go into the Lobby in favour of this Bill. I hope we shall have some opportunity in Committee of making alterations calculated to make the Bill more acceptable to the contributory boroughs.

Mr. SCURR: I rise to support the Amendment. The hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates) said that the borough he represented contributed to the Common Poor Fund an amount equal to a rate of 1s. 6d. in the £. May I point out that, according to the latest return issued by a special committee of the London County Council, the highest contribution to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund was made by the City of London and it was 1s. ld. in the £; Lincoln's Inn paid 1s. 1d., Westminster 1s., Hampstead 11d., and Kensington 11d. in the £. Those are the official figures for the year 1926–27.

Mr. GATES:: I know the amount of the contribution by Kensington is £199,000, and that is equivalent to a rate of ls. 6d. in the £.

Mr. SCU RR: The hon. Member forgets that Kensington gets some of that money back again. The figures I have quoted have never been challenged. The Labour party are not in a majority on the county council, and consequently there cannot be any partisan feeling in regard to the figures which I have quoted. It is rather interesting to note that this Measure is not receiving a very cordial reception from the Opposition or from the supporters of the Government, particularly in regard to the Clauses of the Bill which relate to the authority which is to be set up to control expenditure in the future. I cannot understand what was in the mind of the Minister of Health when he selected the Metropolitan Asylums Board for this purpose. It is possible that the permanent officials of his Department represented to him that the Metropolitan Asylums Board was the only Poor Law authority in London with some experience of central government, and as the right hon. Gentleman may have said, "Any old thing
will do," the Metropolitan Asylums Board was selected.
If we are to have some authority to control expenditure and to give a pronouncement upon it, surely it ought to be a body which has had some experience of the thing with which it is called upon to deal. What is the Metropolitan Asylums Board? I am not concerned about its indirect election or the principle of nominated members. Its duties are largely and primarily to look after the hospitals for infectious diseases. It looks after the smallpox and scarlet fever hospitals. Every board of guardians appoint representatives on that Board and, broadly speaking, they choose their representative because they have some knowledge and experience of hospital administration. After all, I presume that any Minister, in putting forward the 18 nominated persons, would be guided by exactly the same thing. These people, therefore, whose duty it is to deal with the question of hospital administration, are suddenly called upon, like a bolt from the blue, to decide how much should be spent by a particular board of guardians in regard to outdoor relief. They know nothing about it; they have no data; they have no means of ascertaining.
All sorts of statements may be made, here or anywhere else, abut the extravagance of this or that Board; the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and myself have been for a good many years quite familiar with this charge against East End boards of guardians. I remember that some years ago a Report was published on the Poplar Board of Guardians, which is referred to as the Davey Report, and at that time the electors and ratepayers, who were very much in agreement with the policy of hon. Members opposite, were able to secure a very large majority on the Poplar Board of Guardians. They did so, and, until a very few years ago, there were never more than seven members of the Labour party out of 24 on the Poplar Board of Guardians. At that time they determined that they would show the world how administration should be done, and they selected as their leader a very admirable man, Captain Richard Green, a man who in every way would commend himself to hon. Members opposite. He was a public school boy,
a university man, and a great industrialist, and he had all the qualifications which hon. Members opposite think are essential to administration. He came on to the board determined to cut down the amount of relief, and to show how extravagant we were, but he had not been there for six weeks before he was doing exactly what, the Labour members were asking should be done, and at the end of three years he declined to stand again, because he felt that he could not conscientiously put forward the policy with which his particular organisation had been identified.
The only other function of the Metropolitan Asylums Board is to deal with casual wards, and here we have had, just recently, an example of their incompetence in dealing with a question which is outside their general work. They have recently passed the very reactionary and retrograde proposal of going back to stone-breaking as a test for labour. I am not going to stand up, in this House or anywhere else, and say that a test should not he applied to persons who are seeking employment and are also seeking relief. I do not say that it is the duty of the State to pay out money to everyone without something in return, and I apply that to every class in society; but, in regard to stone-breaking, I think it is the most foolish thing that has ever been devised. After all, if a man refuses this particular task, it does not in any way prove that he is unwilling to work. Take, for example, a cabinet-maker who is out of employment. If this cabinet-maker, who has to keep his hands in a very fine condition in order that he may do his work, is put on to stone-breaking, he is ruined absolutely for life, and, if ever he had an opportunity of getting work at his own trade, he would not be able to do it. I could multiply instance after instance of that kind in every trade and profession. Are you going to say to a clerk, a person—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not pursue that line. It does not really come within the scope of this Bill or of the Amendment.

Mr. SCURR: What I was suggesting was that the authority which, under this Bill, is to look after the estimates, namely, the Metropolitan Asylums Board,
has shown in the past that it is not able to do work for which it is not qualified. My point is that it is not qualified, on account of its being primarily a hospital authority, to go into matters concerning finance, and I incidentally used this other instance which had come to my notice in the last few weeks. In deference, however, to your ruling, I will not pursue it; I think I have already made my point.
I join, also, with practically every other Member of the House who has spoken, in protesting against this continuous succession of temporary Measures in regard to the Poor Law. I certainly think that the Minister has had ample time, if he had had the courage, to introduce into this House a comprehensive Measure of Poor Law reform. Hour after hour, day after day, week after week, we can throw all sorts of things at one another across the House regarding extravagance in outdoor relief and all the rest of it, but the real point is that, so far as the able-bodied unemployed are concerned, they ought to be taken out of the purview of Poor Law relief. It is not a mere matter of giving to people so many shillings per week in order to keep them alive. We on this side of the House agree, equally with Members on the other side, that it is demoralising for that to continue for any length of time. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley has expressed that view in this House on more than one occasion, and probably he would be accused of being more in favour of lavish relief than anyone else. We on this side of the House will be as severe as any Members on the other side against persons, of whom there may be some, who have no real desire to work when every opportunity has been given to every person of having work to do.
The policy of the Government, however, ought to be comprised, not in temporary Measures of this kind, but in a well-considered Measure which would take able-bodied unemployed persons outside the Poor Law. Even during the last few years, an authority in London, which has had some experience in dealing with the unemployed, has become actually derelict. The chairman of that body, the Central Unemployed Body, was my friend Mr. Pascall—not a supporter of ours by any means, but a keen supporter
of the Conservative party. He has really broken his heart in his endeavours to get Governments to deal with this question in the way in which it should be dealt with, and taken outside the purview of the Poor Law. Whatever may be done in regard. to the organisation, all that I can foresee is simply a wrangle between boards of guardians and the Metropolitan Asylums Board over the amount of the guardians' estimates. Backwards and forwards the estimates will go, and it must be remembered that the guardians have to prepare those estimates half-yearly. They are not the collecting authority, but have to make a precept on the borough council, and they have to get their estimates through within a particular time. If the Metropolitan Asylums Board is going to cut down those estimates by any amount, it is going to make a difference to the precept to be levied on the borough council. Negotiations will have to go on, which will either lead to enormous delay or, in the end, to simply destroying, in many ways, local government in London, by reason of the friction that will arise.
I think that this is a bad Bill in every sense of the word. The contribution of 9d. ought to be increased to at least what is an average amount. Certain East End boroughs are accused of extravagance, but I may say that the figure in the Poor Law Union of Stepney is a little over 12d., and in the Poor Law Union of Westminster it is practically the same, so it may be said that the price per head shows clearly that ls. is much more like the average than the 9d. laid down in this Bill. I have expressed my views in regard to the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and I also consider that we ought to have had a comprehensive Measure of Poor Law Reform. On these grounds, I trust that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. RYE: I hardly like to refer to the comparison of expenses between Stepney and Westminster, but I should like to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) to the fact that rents and expenses in Westminster are considerably higher than in Stepney, and that, therefore, it is hardly fair for him to say that the rate is 11d. in Stepney and ls. in Westminster, and, therefore, to all intents and purposes——

Mr. SCURR: The hon. Member will excuse me, but the hon. Member for North Kensington said that they levied a rate of 1s. 6d., which was brought about by this scheme of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. I endeavoured to correct him by pointing out the extra amount returned to each of the contributory boroughs.

Mr. RYE: I was not referring to the comparison made by the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates), but was dealing with the express statement, as I understood it, that Stepney could compare favourably with Westminster, because Stepney was spending 11d. and Westminster 1s.

Mr. SCURR: Per head!

7.0 p.m.

Mr. RYE: I agree that it is per head, but you cannot compare the two, because, for example, the rents chargeable for Poor Law institutions, or anything else concerned with the Poor Law in Westminster, must necessarily be very much higher than they are in Stepney. As regards the Metropolitan Asylums Board, I agree with several hon. Members in thinking that it is not an ideal body for the purpose to be carried out under this Bill; but, at the same time, I think it is going a little far to suggest that it is incompetent because, in the main, its duty is to look after asylums and fever hospitals, and to suggest that, consequently, if it is given these duties, it will net be able to carry them out. The hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) has drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the Metropolitan Asylums Board undertakes duties in connection with casual wards. It is true, I believe, that at the moment there are only five casual wards in London, but these duties are carried out by the body which is generally known as the M.A.B., and I have never yet heard it suggested, certainly not from the benches opposite, that in connection with these casual wards there has been any unfair treatment or any dishonesty towards any person. Therefore, it is a little farfatched to suggest that, if the duties to be undertaken under this Bill are placed in the hands of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, fair treatment will not be given. I think the best answer is that there has been fair treatment so far as the casual wards are concerned.
Then there is a question, to which I should like to refer, on the Bill itself. The hon. Member for North Kensington drew attention to it, and I think he was the only speaker who did so. It is as to the period of five years. I agree with the hon. Member that there is no reason why it should go on for so long a period. He pointed out that this, in the first instance, was a temporary Measure. It was arranged, I think, partly between the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the city of Westminster, and it was then carried though by the Act of 1921, the operation of which was expressly limited to a period of two years. I do not see why, because it has been extended at various periods until the 1st April next, it should go on for so long a further period, and I should like to suggest to the Minister that he might consider the advisability of making the period synchronise with the election of the representatives on the Metropolitan Asylums Board. That, in effect, would be a period of three years. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for North Kensington, when, in 1921 and 1923, the payments were fixed at 1s. 3d. for indoor relief and 9d. for outdoor relief, the cost of living was considerably higher than it is to-day, and if the Metropolitan Asylums Board are not to have the right—and the Minister has told us that they are not—of varying those rates, I do not think it should go on for so long a period as five years. I hope, therefore, that the suggestion made in the absence of the Minister by the hon. Member for North Kensington will be considered, and that the period will be cut down to the shorter term of three years.
I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions as to the powers to be vested in the Metropolitan Asylums Board. Can they, for example, question payments to be charged against the Fund under Section 69 of the Metropolitan Poor Act of 1867? Under that Act certain charges for salaries of officials, for managers of asylums, and for dispensers can be charged upon the Fund. Is the Metropolitan Asylums Board to have any say in the payment of those salaries? Are they to look into them? Are they to question them? Again, there is the question of compensation for loss of office,
which under the same Act is charged upon the Fund. Is the newly-constituted body to have the right to inquire into the amount, into the inadequacy or over-adequacy, as the case may be, of any compensation that may be payable? There are other minor matters. There are fees paid for registrations of births, marriages and deaths. There are also vaccination fees which are chargeable on this Fund. Will those be within the purview of the Metropolitan Asylums Board so that they can look into and question any charges which they consider to be unreasonable and throwing an unfair burden on the contributing authorities? If they are not to have those powers, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that further district auditors should be appointed. I am rather chary of making this suggestion, because some people think there are already a sufficient number of officials looking after local government matters, but it might be a very important matter to inquire into expenditure in the directions I have mentioned. I, therefore, hope that, if there are no such powers as I have indicated vested in the Metropolitan Asylums Board, then further district auditors might be appointed.
The hon. Member for North Kensington referred to—although he did not mention the writer—a letter containing certain observations written by Mr. Geoffrey Drage, who, as I have always understood, is a man of great knowledge and experience in Poor Law matters. In a letter in the "Times" this morning Mr. Drage asked certain questions. He wanted to know whether relief from the Fund would be given to able-bodied single persons, whether it would be available as a matter of routine for supplementary unemployed benefit and other forms of national public assistance, for men living in common lodging-houses, or to supplement the wages of casuals or the takings of hawkers. He certainly is not clear as to whether or not such relief should be given by the body to be set up to undertake these duties. I understand the Minister has already indicated that the Metropolitan Asylums Board would have no such rights. If so, then I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter and see that they have such rights, because otherwise what is the good of placing this matter in the hands of that Board? What are they going to do? All they can do is to examine estimates
brought before them by the beards of guardians. What are they to do if an estimate is brought before them by some board of guardians that in the past, in the opinion of many people, has given out-door relief to many persons who were in no way entitled to or deserved that relief? That particular board of guardians would, obviously, on the first occasion, bring forward an estimate based on the old number of persons who had been given relief. What are the Metropolitan Asylums Board to do in that case? Are they to use their discretion and to have the right to cut it down by, say, 33 per cent.? If they do not, the result would be that they would be passing an estimate for an amount which, in reality, would be in excess of the requirements of the locality. I hope that is a matter that will have further consideration by the Minister.
There is also a very important question which has not been referred to, and that is that there is no right of appeal from the Metropolitan Asylums Board to the Minister. In all these cases, as a general rule, there is a final right of appeal, or rather the Minister has the right to step in. What is going to happen if the Metropolitan Asylums Board runs amok? Supposing they pass extravagant estimates or, in the converse case, supposing they act in a niggardly spirit, is the Minister prepared to be powerless for three or five years? I am going to suggest to him that, in the interests of the ratepayers and of the persons who are to be in receipt of relief, he ought to reserve the right to step in, as he can do in other cases, and put an end to the mal-administration, if it happens to be the case of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and to say to them, "You are not dealing fairly and reasonably with the boards of guardians who come before you. You are dealing in a cheeseparing, niggardly and unfair manner, and I wish to put an end to it and to supersede you." He is not getting these powers under this Bill, and when the Bill is passed the position will be that the Metropolitan Asylums Board, whether it acts fairly or unfairly, will be the master of the situation. The suggestion has been made that they do not know their duties. The 55 of them are nominated as guardians, and it has been suggested that the boards of guardians
nominate persons who have no particular knowledge of the Poor Law, but who have knowledge of asylums and hospitals. If that be so, and they are incompetent people, Heaven only knows what they may do! They may be taken in by some of these boards of guardians. They may come alone with some of their costly and extravagant estimates based on their past mal-practices, and these poor innocents on the Metropolitan Asylums Board may accept them. That is going to be no good whatsoever. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will hear that point in mind and will see whether he cannot put in a Clause in Committee giving him the power to step in in emergencies and act in such a way as may be proper.
Finally, and I speak as a Member of the City of Westminster, which is the largest contributory body to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, although there is no desire on the part of the City of Westminster not to assist the poorer people in the poorer parts of London, but we congratulate the Minister on taking a step which goes to some extent towards control of the funds which the contributing bodies have to find. It is something for which we are grateful. It is not as far as I should have liked the Minister to have gone, but it is the third step he has taken to put an end to maladministration in Poor Law guardians and borough councils and I congratulate him most heartily on the efforts he has made to put an end to a state of affairs which was rapidly becoming intolerable.

Mr. MARCH: I happen to be one of those people who have never been members of a board of guardians. I do not speak, therefore, as a guardian, but as a representative of a very poor district where a very large number of people have, unfortunately, to go to the guardians to get some assistance to keep them alive. I have never yet come across anyone who has been getting from the board of guardians what I would call lavish relief. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates) talk about the lavish expenditure of the boards of guardians. Has he had the experience of getting assistance from the boards of guardians and trying to live on it? If he and many others had to go to the board of guardians for their subsistence, they would
soon speak differently about lavishness. I have always found in this House that hon. Members who speak about lavishness never speak about what they are getting themselves. It is very nice to sit here and hear hon. Members, who have never known what it is to want a crust of bread, talking about other people getting lavish assistance. I would like them to try to exist for a year or two on what even the Poplar Board of Guardians have been allowing the people in that district. I get many of them coming to me and complaining of the action of the board of guardians and of the interrogations of the relieving officers and of the committees. It seems to me that those remarks are made by people who do not mind spending and lavishing money on those who have already got it, but who describe as lavish anything that is given to those few unfortunate people who have nothing upon which to exist.
Has the Minister ever taken into consideration the fact that we have had a Great War? When he talked this afternoon about the increase in the numbers on the board of guardians, has he taken into consideration the number of men the Ministry of Pensions have struck off from assistance and who have had to go to the board of guardians? Has he taken into consideration the number of widows and children that have to go to the board of guardians now in consequence of the seven years' limit? Day after day I meet men and women whom I can remember well looking bonny, healthy, hearty people but who are now gradually deteriorating and going down and down. It makes one's heart almost bleed to meet them. You cannot pass without giving them a cheery word and if possible rendering what little assistance you can. When they know you are prepared to render some little assistance, you have many people coming along. When one has worked and lived with them for 50 years one knows fairly well those who will work and those who will not. One knows fairly well those who, maimed and injured through the War, cannot and never will get work. The employers do not want them and, as a matter of fact, cannot have them, because the insurance companies will not accept the liability in case they should meet with accident. 1 know a man with whom I used to work who is left with one eye, through unfortunately
chopping a piece of fire-wood at home. The piece of wood flew into his eye, and he lost his eye. He was a vehicle worker. I worked beside him. He has not got a job since. Where is he to get a living when he has finished his sick pay? His living has to be on the board of guardians. Other people more fortunate have to help to keep him. If you allow him 15s. a week for board and lodgings he has not got a lot to be extravagant upon, and I wish some hon. Members who talk so ridiculously about lavishness would try it for a year or two.
The papers come out with phrases such as the "Daily Mail" did the other day, with its placard, "Six years on the boards of guardians." I know another man who was injured at his work and lost the use of both his legs. He is going about now on crutches, and has been on the guardians six years. Probably he is the man they meant. He goes about on crutches because he is so deformed in his legs that no one will employ him. Where is he to go for a living? Why do you not come out boldly, as you have done in other cases, and say you mean to have a dig at the board of guardians to see that they are looked after by a body like this? Why do you not say to these people: "It is nearly time you went into a lethal chamber"? You have not the courage to do that kind of thing, or to tell the people they ought to starve because they have been unfortunate and have got deformed, as this man is. He has been on the guardians for six years, and is likely to be for another six if he lives, but you are trying to see that they cut down the amount they allow the people of this kind so that they may soon go off the earth through being semi-starved. You will not have it that it is starving them, but they get so deteriorated that it is nothing but starvation.
The Minister tried to convince the House that the Metropolitan Asylums Board were a fine body of people. He said they had practically half the paying boroughs and half the receiving boroughs, and only 18 nominated people. Most of the nominated people are getting fairly decent pay or superannuation. Most of them have had great experience in charity organisation work, in investigating and interrogating and going right down to the bottom of
people's birth to find out whether they were actually born as they ought to have been, and if they were not, they had to be badly treated for it. These nominated members will be able to nullify any decision to which the others come. The half from the receiving boards will have a big job to convince those from the paying boards that their estimates are reasonable and fair, and when they have convinced them they will have the other 18 to contend with, and they will be able to nullify the decision arrived at by these two sections. This body, to my mind, is nothing like the proper body to deal with this business. We hear from the Minister that assistance is given in accordance with the numbers on assistance or relief, but when it comes to the representation of these boards it is on the valuation of the borough. The consequence is that the receiving boroughs are very much handicapped by the representatives of the paying boroughs.
I remember quite well that this was arrived at because Poplar took the action it did. Poplar said, "We had heard from Tories and Liberals for many years that unemployment was a national question and, because the nation did not do its duty, we decided that we would do it for them," and so a conference was called and we met the representatives of the richer boroughs and the poorer boroughs. We cannot call them otherwise. It is owing to geography, I suppose. They happen to be placed in this position. The richer boroughs could not live without help from the poorer boroughs, in some instances at all events. In my borough we have railways and docks to upset us every hour of the day and night. We put up with all the inconvenience and take the goods to the West End that they may enjoy themselves. If we do that, surely we are entitled to some consideration from them, because we tear our roads up and go to a big expense in carting the goods up to them, and tear the roads up again coming back. Therefore, the richer boroughs, as they term themselves, found they were called upon to give some assistance to the poorer boroughs. We are inter-dependent; we are not dependent upon ourselves, and as the Government will not take up its responsibility of finding employment for the able-bodied unemployed, they have done everything
they can to prevent the guardians giving the help they ought to give to keep body and soul together. Even if many of these men had an opportunity of getting work they could not do it, because they have not been able to keep up their stamina on account of the impoverished manner in which they have been served by the Minister and his Regulations. He has brought such pressure on the guardians that they cannot do their business by these people as they ought to do, and the Government themselves will not do their share as they ought to do. We have asked the Minister over and over again to open up a colony where the men can have proper training, but he does not feel inclined to do that. Put these men to work and then test them. After you have fed and clothed them, give them reasonable work to do, and if they fail to do it, you are entitled to call them slackers, but you have no right to call them slackers until you do that. You have no right to half starve men and women and children, as they are being half-starved in my district owing to the shortage of what they ought to have to keep them alive.
The Minister also forgets that for over six years we have had over 1,250,000 unemployed registering, and the unemployment pay has not been enough to keep them in condition to work when work turns up, but they have had to go to the guardians for supplemental assistance, just as many pensioners and many old age pensioners do. That is how it is that the numbers have jumped up on the list of the Poplar Board of Guardians that the Minister read to-day. Before the War pretty well 25 per cent. of our people were on casual employment, doing a day, or half a day, or a couple of days' work a week. That has not improved. There is still a very large number on casual work and those on casual work at the docks, through the arrangements that are made, get some help by the work they do and some help through the Employment Exchange because of the nature of their work, and if it were not for that assistance where would they have to go but to the guardians? I can quite well understand the same thing applying to Bethnal Green and various other places. You could not expect half the people who are living in Bethnal Green to do road work, and if you put
them on to it you would spoil them for any work they might obtain afterwards in their own trade. In Bethnal Green there is a large number of cabinetmakers, French polishers, bootmakers, slipper-makers, and so on. When work is slack in their trade, it is no use putting them on to road-making. They could not do it. They were never built for it. They have never lived up to it. You term them loafers, as hon. Members are very prone to term men and women who, by force of circumstances, have to get assistance from the guardians. That assistance is not half enough to keep body and soul together and to keep them fit for work when work comes along.
Even the master carmen in the East End of London, bad as they are, if they have no work for their horses turn them out to grass, and when they fetch them back they feed them, clean them and have them properly housed before they put them to work. You do not do that with the unemployed, and you expect a man who has been out for months and months, and sometimes for years, to carry on as though nothing had happened. You put them alongside men who have been well trained and, because they do not keep up with them, the foreman puts them off and says on their paper they are no good to him, and the Minister says, "You are discharged on your own account." Where is the man to go? You have not found a lethal chamber to put him into, and he must go to the guardians. Then you grumble at the guardians for giving him some assistance. I wonder whether the Metropolitan Asylums Board are to have the right to look through the applications of the people who come to the guardians? What is going to happen to any who have been convicted? No one wants them. Where are they to go? They must go to the guardians. They must not steal. If they steal, they are run into prison. They will get better attention in prison than they will get from the guardians under the conditions laid down by this Minister of Health.
Suppose a man gets convicted for stealing because he is hungry or wants something to clothe his children, and serves a term of imprisonment. When he comes out, nobody wants him. He is
harassed by the police. Where is he to go for assistance? He must go to the guardians. Are the guardians to be blamed because, through force of circumstances, he had to go there? What happens to many of the higher-class people who take their thousands and get convicted? There is a great to-do, and people say, "We must do something for this man. We must try to get him out of this. He never ought to have been there. Look at the character he had. Look at the job he had." He had such a good job that he ought to have been able to live on it and keep himself honest. The majority of working-class men and women do not get enough in wages when they are in full work to keep them as they ought to be kept, and then some people think, as the Minister does, that they ought to live easily for a week under his regulations without having to get any assistance from unemployment benefit. That is the week that they want something. He has not been able to get enough to put by to enable him to live a week without getting some assistance. Boards of guardians are established for the purpose of giving assistance to the needy, and when they are in want you should allow the guardians to use their discretion as to what is enough to keep body and soul together. When they have given what is reasonable, along come the Minister and his auditors and say,
"This is unreasonable because you are much better fed than those people who are being treated reasonably." I hope working-class men and women will soon realise what you are after. You are trying to starve them into submission so that they will do anything the employer wants them to do for any pay he likes to give them. When someone on this side said they are not paid enough to keep them and their means have to be supplemented by the guardians, the Minister says, "That is business-like. I congratulate the employers on being able to get their work done." I do not congratulate the employers on getting work done on low wages. I want to see men get wages that will enable them to live and keep their families together without going to the guardians at all.

It being Half-past Seven, of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of
Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — LONDON, MIDLAND, AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. MACLEAN: I want to ask advice on a matter arising here, Mr. Speaker. I have looked through this Bill, and I find that it relates particularly to the taking over or the laying down of a railway in England. I have put before the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, certain grievances relating to certain people in my constituency, and I wish to ask your ruling as to whether it is possible for me to raise this matter on the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill even though the portion of the railway to be laid down by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, is to be in England.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member will be in order.

Mr. MACLEAN: I want to raise a point with the Chairman of Ways and Means and also with the Minister of Transport. I have had a question before the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company now for the last two or three years. In the South-Western end of my constituency, there are four housing schemes which have been practically completed within that time. There is a railway station immediately adjacent to those housing schemes. Since those schemes have been completed, between 4,000 and 6,000 inhabitants have come to reside in that particular part of the constituency, but there has been practically no addition made to the transportation facilities for those people by the railway company in order to take them to their employment in the city. I have raised this question, as I have stated, on several occasions, and I have always met with a blank refusal on the part of the railway company. Reasons have been given but upon examination they have been found to be not exactly watertight.
The first excuse was that, if they stopped the trains coming from the coast or from Paisley at this station, which is already built, every train following would be delayed three minutes. I
Immediately pointed out that that could not be so, because there was a double track of lines running through this particular station which carried the trains from Paisley practically into Glasgow. Consequently, any train which stopped at Cardonald Station to pick up passengers could not delay a train following, because such a train could go along the inside line and run right into Glasgow without being stopped or pulled up in any way. Immediately I put forward that view, which was borne out by a sketch which was sent to the railway company, I was informed that they knew perfectly well that there was a double track there and that the objection that they had to stopping the trains was the bottle-neck entrance at St. Enoch's Station at Glasgow. That, to my mind, is the only rational objection that could have been urged. But after they had put forward that objection, the people who were objecting to the stopping of trains at the station because of this bottle-neck, immediately erected a new station at Ibrox for the purpose of using it once a fortnight to accommodate the sports-loving crowds who travel down to the Rangers football park at Ibrox. There was no objection to large numbers of trains being run from the central station right through the bottle-neck to Ibrox Station and back again in order to convey big crowds of football lovers and sports people
I wish to submit to this House and to the Chairman of Ways and Means or to whoever is to see the safe passage of this Bill through this House, and to the railway company, that there was no occasion for the railway company to put forward objections of that nature and then almost immediately afterwards to show how feeble was their objection by providing facilities for greater numbers of people and larger numbers of trains travelling through this bottle-neck which they complained about when it came to a question of stopping trains at this station. My principal reason for urging this is that about two miles distant from this station upon another line belonging to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, and running practically parallel
to the line upon which the station to which I am referring is situated, there is another station which is serving another housing scheme which was laid down by the Glasgow Corporation. There are almost as many people residing upon that housing estate as there are upon the housing estate which I have just mentioned in the South-West of Govan. There is a station which taps this particular district, and the same railway company which objects to providing facilities and stop the trains at the station at Cardonald makes no objection to the stopping of their trains at Cokerhill station in order to serve this pàrticular housing scheme.
There are two terminal stations in Glasgow which can be used quite effectively for these two housing schemes. One is being used at the present time to serve the station to which I have referred, while Cardonald Station is being left high and dry, and the people who have to travel to the city have great difficulty in finding conveyances. There is no car service affecting this particular housing scheme except one some distance away. In regard to the other scheme, a car system has been laid down right through the centre of the scheme, enabling the people to be carried to the city. The only way that the Cardonald people can get into the city is to go down the main road and find cars which are usually crowded. No trains stop at the station, and the inhabitants are put to many disadvantages in order to get to their work in the city. The consequence is, that many of them have to leave their homes at a time considerably earlier than they otherwise would do if the railway company were to provide the transport facilities which are possible.
I am not opposing this Bill, and I do not intend to press matters to a Division, but I think the time has come when this question must be raised publicly. These five or six thousand people connected with these four housing schemes round Cardonald Station have been held up far too long by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company. I have in my pocket a diary giving the timetables for the two stations referred to. The time-table for the station at Cokerhill shows a considerable number of additional
trains which have been put into operation by the railway company since the Moss Park housing scheme was opened, but the housing schemes in Govan are not being attended to, and there have been practically no additional trains provided at all. As a matter of fact, judging from the time-table which I have in my pocket, it is practically impossible for anyone living in those houses to work in the city and get home for their lunch and back again. With regard to the scheme at Moss Park, the same company provides several trains in order to take workers from the city home for lunch and back again in good time to get to their work without any loss of pay or anything of that kind.
I want to put it to whoever is in charge of this Bill that he should make the necessary representations to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company that facilities must be given to the public who have to travel any distance. If they can provide facilities one day in 14 for thousands of people because the Rangers Football Club first eleven play at home each fortnight without any upsetting of the time-tables of the company, I consider that it is high time the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company gave the people in other districts who have to travel every day to their employment adequate facilities to do so. Now that the company is applying to this House for powers and privileges under this Bill, I hope that we shall impress upon them that it is their duty to see that the people whom they are out to serve get proper facilities whenever they desire to travel.

Mr. FIELDEN: The House will understand that I am not in a position to answer the complaints that have been made against the London, Midland and Scottish Railway with regard to the running of certain trains in the neighbourhood of Glasgow. If the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) had told me what points he was going to raise, I would have tried to make myself acquainted with those points and then, perhaps, I could have explained the position to the House. I can assure the hon. Member that the question he complains of and the points he raises with regard to what he considers to be the inefficiency of the services at certain stations shall
be carefully looked into by the railway, company, whó, if possible, will try to meet the requirements, as he puts them, of his constituents.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I do not intend to detain the House very long, but I notice that in Clause 10 of this Bill reference is made to the maintenance of roads over bridges. I want to say, speaking from my own experience and particularly from my experience of the last few years, that the railway companies ought to be compelled to bring the roads where their bridges are situated up to the general level of the roads maintained by the public authorities. If there is a bit of bad road anywhere at all, you will discover it over a railway bridge. If ever there is humbug about the maintenance of a road, it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of a railway bridge. There is a case where I live myself. It has nothing to do with the London, Midland and Scottish Company, but it is applicable to all railway companies. When the Bill gets into Committee the Minister should do all he can to stiffen up every Clause referring to the maintenance of roads over bridges. The Minister of Transport may spend a large amount of money on the maintenance of roads, but as likely as not there will be an abominable piece of roadway somewhere in the neighbourhood of a railway bridge. Railways ought to be compelled to keep their roads in a condition equal to the surfacing done by the local authority.
There is another point. Some provision ought to be made whereby railway companies provide bridges wide enough for the traffic that will pass over them. This is a very serious matter. In the town where I live we have a dispute with the Ministry of Health over the question of the widening of a bridge. The whole town is held up simply because of the persistence of the North Eastern Railway Company. The dispute is as to who ought to widen the bridge in order that the town may develop, and who shall maintain the road and carry on the resurfacing in a thorough manner, and that dispute has arisen simply because the railway authorities are doing all they can to avoid their bounden duty to pay their share towards the develooment of a town from which they derive considerable profit. I think powers ought to be obtained by the Government and given
to local authorities to compel railway companies in this direction. With our changed methods of transport by road, this is an exceedingly important matter.
There is a further point. As far as I am personally concerned I should feel far more sympathetic to railway companies and their Bills if they were to play the game with regard to the men whom they victimised over the dispute of 1926. I am not going to press that matter now, but I would remind the House that we on the Labour Benches do not forget it. I am under the impression that there are a large number of men still suffering unjustly for the action that was taken in 1926. It seems to me that these great corporations, these railway companies, which are coming here for special powers, ought not to arrogate to themselves the right to keep men permanently unemployed for some misdemeanour that occurred a couple of years ago. The companies ought to be big enough to overlook that. They talk about peace and a better spirit in industry. They will have a chance if they will set an example of the kind of spirit they would like to see.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I had not intended to intervene, and would not do so now had it not been for the point raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead). I can understand his feeling on the subject—a feeling that is widespread not only in this House but in the country—that it is bad for trade and very inconvenient that a lorry should come to a bridge and find that it is impossible to cross that bridge because a notice is posted up, "Nothing over five tons can pass over this bridge."

Mr. PALIN: What about broken springs?

Colonel ASHLEY: If I may respectfully differ from the hon. Member, I do not think that the blame can justifiably rest upon the railway companies. When the railway companies were given their powers—that is, when their lines were built and their bridges constructed—they took on a certain liability, and that liability was that they should put up a bridge sufficiently strong to carry the traffic of the day. It is not fair to a company to say that because conditions have entirely altered, the company should
take the entire charge of making a, bridge fit for the traffic of the present day. But, having said that, I would indicate to the House that there is a Bill which is the third Order on Friday next—unfortunately I do not think it will be reached—which has been brought in by an hon. Member to deal with this very important subject, and it embodies, I believe, a more or less general agreement between the local authorities and the railway companies as to the terms upon which the bridges should be taken over by the local authorities. The railway company is to pay a certain sum to get rid of the liability, and the local authority is to take over the bridge, which thereafter is to be a charge on the local authority, which has to put the bridge in order so as to make it fit to carry all the principal traffic.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I can understand the Minister's point with regard to past commitments, and I probably agree with him there. But there is a new development taking place and provision should be made for it. That is one point to which attention can be paid in this Bill, which provides for an extension of the railway system. Prevision should be used as well as provision.

Colonel ASHLEY: Prevision is being used to deal with this subject, in the private Bill to which I have referred. That Bill would enable the bridges to he dealt with properly by the local authorities, no doubt with a grant from the Road Fund to enable the difference between what the railway company can provide and the cost of maintenance to be met, in order that the bridge may be kept in proper order.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The occasions on which we can raise matters affecting the railway services in our constituencies are very few, and I take this opportunity of referring to one point on which I have been in correspondence quite recently with the Minister of Transport. That is the immense help it would be to the young men and young women of Scotland if special rates could be given them for travelling to and from the universities. They are not a very large number of people who are affected, but they are not an uninfluential section of the population. They are people who deserve well of the
country. Particularly in the north of Scotland they have very long distances to travel, and, of course, that travelling is a very heavy charge on their family budgets when they are attending the universities. There is an analogy which I think the railway companies might take into consideration. When a political party is holding a conference or a learned society is having a great meeting in any part of the country, it can get cheap fares for its members, provided that a considerable number attend such meeting or conference. It might be a meeting of the Primrose League or the Liberal party.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Or the Independent Labour party.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Or the Independent Labour party. In the universities of Scotland there are four great centres of learning to which young men and women congregate three times a year from their homes, hundreds going to each of these great centres. The Primrose League or the Independent Labour party are entitled to attend their conferences on payment of reduced fares, and surely these young students should be entitled to cheap fares to attend their universities. Such a concession would be of the greatest help to these young men and women, and I would urge very strongly on the Minister, and still more on the representatives present of the railway companies, that this policy should be taken into careful and sympathetic consideration.

Mr. BROMLEY: I should not have risen but for the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wall-head). As far as is necessary I would supplement that plea to the railway companies, but I feel it is at least my duty, as a representative of organised railwaymen, to say something to the House lest a wrong impression be left on the minds of hon. Members by what my hon. Friend said. I believe in giving the devil his due, although I am not saying that that is an appropriate epithet for the representatives of the railway companies.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Am I the devil in this case?

Mr. BROMLEY: I certainly would not apply that epithet to my hon. Friend,
but if he is searching for compliments and cares to apply it, I am not averse from his doing so. I merely thought that it would be well that the House should not think that the railway companies have not been considerate of their employés since the dispute of 1926. I am sure that neither my hon. Friend nor any Member of the House would like that wrong impression to be created, when the railway companies are putting forward a Bill which will be exceedingly useful to the particular district that it covers. I would say that the railway companies, following the strike, set an example to very many employers of labour. Out of some hundreds of men who were sufficiently unwise to get themselves within the pale of the law, I believe that we have left fewer than six victims, and they are at the moment receiving the consideration of the officers of the particular companies that employed them.
For a great many years there has been a standing order by all railway directors that, to keep their service on a high altitude, any servant who is ever convicted in a Court loses his employment on the railway. Out of some hundreds who were convicted during the strike of 1926—many of them, I am afraid, by some prejudice on the part of those who tried them and not for very grave reasons—the companies against their own directors' rules have reinstated all but about six in their former positions and seniority, and the cases of the six are now receiving attention. With regard to those six, I would add my plea to that of the hon. Member for Merthyr, and express the hope that their cases will soon be put right. I had the pleasure even this morning of visiting the chief office of one of our great companies with regard to a man who was dismissed for what I must admit was a very foolish offence, and I was told that he could start again in his old position. I thought the House would like to know that, although there may be one or two cases still requiring attention, the railway companies have set to other employers an example which might be followed. I hope that plea will not delay the passage of this Bill.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

8.0 p.m.

Mr. MARCH: When my speech was interrupted, I was giving particulars of the cases and conditions of men and women with whom I have come
into contact. I want to bring other cases to the notice of the Minister of Health. One case was brought to my attention recently of a man who was an omnibus driver. He had been unfortunate enough on one or two previous occasions to come into conflict with the police on minor matters connected with driving, such as stopping too long on the stand, or going along, in one instance, on the near side of a tram. On the particular occasion to which I wish specially to refer he was summoned for going on the offside of a tram at Canning Town fire station, which is a noted stopping place for the change-over of trams which run in the West Ham district. On the near side there is just room for one vehicle to pass between the kerb and the tram. People were coming across the road to the tram, and the man went on the offside. Another tram was coming up, and he had to go further on the offside, otherwise he would have run into the tram which was coming up. Therefore, he took the course of going still further to the offside. He was summoned and fined 40s. and his licence was taken away. He has been endeavouring to get his licence back, and has been five weeks out of work.
I have stated the case of men who, if they are out of work one week, according to the Minister of Labour, get nothing in the way of benefit. This particular man earned £4 a week, and he has a wife and four children under 12 years of age, and pays 19s. 3d. a week rent for four rooms. No one will say that that is an extravagant home. He is a teetotaller; and I have known him for years. Of the five weeks during which he has been out of work, he managed to struggle on for the first three weeks while he was appealing to the Magistrate and
the Commissioner of Police to get his licence back. He has been told by the Commissioner of Police that he will not get his licence back, because on the last occasion that he was in trouble he signed an undertaking that if he got his licence on that occasion and anything occurred again he would not get his licence. I have the letter in which he is told by the Commissioner of Police that his licence will not he renewed. The man is 35 years of age and has been a taxi-driver and an omnibus driver for 15 years. He managed to struggle on for three weeks, because his wife disposed of things that they could spare, hoping all the time that he would get back his licence or be able to find some other work. He has not succeeded and has had to go to the board of guardians. He gets no unemployment pay on account of having been convicted of an offence. The hon. Member for Kensington North asked whether the Government were going to delegate to the Metropolitan Asylums Board the duty of looking through the cases of people who have been convicted. What would they do with a man who has been convicted for driving on the offside of a tram, when there are hon. Members in this House who desire that vehicles should go on the offside of a tram?
The driver on the road hardly knows what is the best thing to do. If he does not keep his time with his omnibus, he is in the wrong, and if he is convicted, that goes against him in getting another job, and probably he is out of work for months before he finds another job. Certainly, he would not get a job from the omnibus company, because he cannot get a licence. This particular man might possibly get a job with a private company, but he will not get £4 a week with a private firm. Consequently, he has had to go to the board of guardians, and instead of getting £4 a week he is getting half that amount from the Poplar Board of Guardians, of which one-half is given in kind, according to the Minister's Regulations, and half in cash. Out of that allowance he has to keep a wife and four children, and pay 19s. 3d. a week rent. Then we are told that the guardians lavishly pour out money on these people. This man did not want to go to the board of guardians
and he does not wish to remain on Poor Law relief. He would sooner be at work.
I knew this man when he was a boy at school. He is a very decent man, although he has had these unfortunate affairs with the omnibus company and the police. If he cannot obtain a driver's licence, he ought to have a conductor's licence. What would hon. Members do with a man of that kind? Would they tell him that his wife and children must starve? If he fails to pay the rent, the landlord could take him to Court, and because there are arrears he could throw him into the street. In that case, he would have to take the whole of his family into the institution. I suppose some hon. Members would like them to go into the institution, in which case there would be no opportunity of the man looking for a job. What will the Metropolitan Asylums Board know about cases of that description, even if they do investigate the estimates sent in by boards of guardians. What will the 18 appointed people on that board know about the life and conditions of an omnibus driver, or an omnibus conductor, or any worker on the road? Nothing at all, and they do not care. We claim that there should be a body of people acting who understand the life and conditions of working-class people and that if there is to be any overhaul of the control over boards of guardians, such a body as we suggest should render assistance to people who come before them to have their cases properly investigated. I hope the House will have common sense enough and will be reasonable enough to reject this Bill, another rotten Bill brought in by a rotten Government.

Mr. AMMON: I have not taken part in any of the discussions in connection with the Poor Law, but the problem raised in this Bill is of so
far-reaching a character and entails such deep-rooted principles that I feel that no one representing a London borough should sit silent and not add his voice in protest. Although I represent a division which has not been quite so hardly hit as some of the receiving boroughs, nevertheless I feel that I must enter some protest against a Bill which is, in effect, the negation of government through elected persons. The Bill takes away from the properly-elected authority the power of control.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present——

Mr. AMMON: The interruption gave us an opportunity of seeing how the supporters of the Government are interested in the Bill which has been brought in by the Government, and how concerned they are about London Government and questions affecting the lives of the poorest of our people.

Sir K. WOOD: Members of the Opposition are opposing the Bill.

Mr. AMMON: The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary says that the Opposition are opposing the Bill. We may take it that he has such influence with his followers that they do not need to listen to any argument on the case, but that they will go into the Lobby and vote as they are told, without regard to what the case may be, whether good, bad or indifferent. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having such a docile majority.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Four hundred of them, and practically none present.

Mr. AMMON: The Bill in spite of its having been introduced by the Government, has found few friends. Even Members of the Conservative party have damned it with faint praise. The hon. Member for Kensington, North, stigmatised the Bill as a stupid Bill. The Bill proposes to hand over to the Metropolitan Asylums Board a large measure of control that should properly belong to the elected boards of guardians. What is the composition of the Metropolitan Asylums Board? The majority of the representatives are from what one would call the contributing boroughs, and 18 other members are nominated by the Minister. That means that, in effect, there is a large majority of the Metropolitan Asylums Board already prejudiced against those boroughs which are receiving boroughs, and over whose budgets they are going to have some oversight. Therefore, not only have we a negation of Government by elected authorities, but we have really a negation of fair dealing and fair consideration of any proposal that may be brought forward.
The Minister of Health, in introducing the Bill, did it in such a manner as to
excite prejudice and to make it almost impossible for hon. Members to consider the matter impartially or fairly, even had they been inclined to stay and listen. He gave us a number of figures, in which he compared certain boroughs on the North side or the West End of London with certain boroughs on the East side of the Thames, showing how over a period of years the numbers of unemployed or the numbers of people receiving Poor Law relief have risen, but giving no indication that he was not comparing like with like or taking account of the fact that circumstances vary in every borough, which may mean a larger number of persons in need of Poor Law relief in certain boroughs because of occupational difficulties, depression in trade and the thousand and one other things which would have no relation to other parts of London. These considerations were not advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, and in that way the case was presented with distinct unfairness.
His argument on the financial side was unfair, because he took 1921 as compared with recent years and showed what a rise there had been in the demand made upon the guardians. The hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney (Captain A. Hudson) even took the year 1920. You could not have a more unfavourable comparison; there is not the slightest attempt to give fair consideration to the position in order that the House might be able to form a proper opinion. The Metropolitan Asylums Board, by its composition, will be in a position, which it will not be slow to seize to reduce their own assessments and the amount which they contribute to the Common Poor Fund at the expense of their, poorer brethren in the poorer districts. These people are to have the oversight over the estimates of boards of guardians. A more ridiculous thing was never proposed in a Bill. They will have no knowledge or idea of any of the facts upon which the estimates are framed. All that they will look at will be a certain sum of money, and then will decide whether it is too much or too little. They will decide it solely on prejudice, and with the idea of saving 6d. or 1d. in the £. That is what this Bill means to most of the boroughs. I know that I speak for certain other London Members on this side of the House when I say that we are willing to
accept the principle of control by any other authority if they will accept the principle of responsibility.
A comprehensive Bill dealing with Poor Law in London has been promised for a long time, and this Bill, therefore, is an expression of incompetency on the part of the Minister to face the larger problem and a comprehensive measure of reform. It is suggested that this Bill is to operate for five years. That is a long period of time having regard to the fact that since 1909 we have been talking about bringing in this comprehensive measure of reform. But for a short period, either a Liberal or Conservative Government have had an opportunity of bringing in such a Measure over and over again, but this Bill is simply avoiding the problem and making the trouble worse. It will impose greater hardship on the poorer classes of the community. As showing how little consideration has been given to it, how ill-digested its the whole scheme, the very parties who have been complaining of an increase in bureaucracy are by this Bill doing something to increase bureaucracy. There is no machinery by which the Metropoliltan Asylums Board can administer the Bill. They will have to find officers to carry on the work, and that simply means a further number of officials for work which could quite properly be carried out by a properly-constituted body, long since overdue.
The hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney quoted a number of cases of a particular character, like Woolwich and Stepney, as indicating the large increase in the number of able-bodied persons who come on to the Poor Law, and he also made it clear that, as far as he was concerned, he would have no hesitation in disqualifying from the franchise all those who had the misfortune to apply for board of guardians relief. Now we are getting at the true mind of the Tory party. This is the reward they offer to ex-service men, who they called heroes and applauded to the sky; for the vast majority of these able-bodied men who are coming to the guardians are men who served in the Forces during the War in one capacity or another. It shows how little care and thought has been bestowed on the Measure when hon. Members oppo
Site quote cases like Woolwich, because it must be known that to a large extent Woolwich is now a derelict town. The trade on which it existed has largely disappeared and there is no possibility of men finding the necessary work at Woolwich. That accounts more than anything else for the large number of able-bodied men who find it necessary to go on the guardians. Let us admit that there are numbers of men who are not anxious or desirous of getting work. But how about labour. I live in and I represent a district which is wholly working-class. I have put myself at the disposal of my constituents in order to help and advise them in every possible way I can, and men have come to me, full of vigour and life with a desire for work, asking me to help them to get a job. Time after time they have come and I have been unable to help them.
Then the day has come when these men do not seem to care; they do not seem to want work. They are disheartened. Their morale and physique have been undermined by the wretched conditions in which they have to live; and hon. Members opposite are more responsible than anybody else for this state of things. They have helped to make matters worse by their abominable system of Poor Law relief. Even if some people have been over generous in regard to the treatment of men and women, are they not a better asset to the nation when they are well fed and well looked after than in the wretched condition I have described? They are only an increasing burden on the community. The Bill is aimed to perpetuate this system. This sort of thing is not going to happen here and there, as is the case at present, but it will place in the hands of irresponsible people, whom the electors will not be able to get at, a power to make this system uniform so far as the receiving guardians of London are concerned. If you draw a lateral line across London dividing it by the Thames you will find that with but two exceptions you have the receiving boroughs on the one side of the line and the contributing boroughs on the other.
We have to-day practically two civilisations, two distinct and opposing communities, in this city of London, and this Bill is going to perpetuate and aggravate the position. A day of reckoning will come as sure as night follows day unless a more reasonable and proper spirit
enters into the consideration of this matter. When an hon. Member opposite made a reference to people being disqualified for seeking relief, an hon. Member on this side of the House interjected the remark as to whether it would apply to safeguarding as well. Those people who come under safeguarding are also receiving relief from public funds, and it is going to be my business to bring forward a question concerning Dulwich College, which was originally founded for the poorest of the poor but which has now been filched by the rich for their own purposes exclusively. The same spirit expresses itself in this Bill, and from what I know of the people who are to administer the Measure they will have no care or thought, no bowels of compassion, but will simply be concerned as to whether they can save a penny in the £ or 6d. on the rates in order that they may show a saving to their own people. I hope even now, as there are some hon. Members opposite who have expressed their dislike of the provisions of this Bill, that the particular Clause handing over these authorities to the Metropolitan Asylums Board will be deleted and that we may be able to set up some other central authority to take over the administration of the problem and administer it with some knowledge and understanding and with a desire to do the best for the persons interested and for this city of ours.

Mr. J. JONES: Although I am not directly concerned, as the representative of my Division, we can see in this Bill coming events casting their shadows before. London is a great city and represents practically one-fifth of the adult population of Great Britain. This Bill is an attempt to "try it on the dog." The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary is usually smiling, as long as he knows he is winning. He is smiling to-night but I do not believe he will smile after the next General Election. At present he would make a splendid picture for "The Babes in the Wood." Those of us who are interested in Poor Law administration take more care of the figures in the streets than we do of the figures in the books. That has been our plan. We know the people whom we represent. I am not now a member of a board of guardians because the right hon. Gentleman opposite, by
means of an automatic majority, which really represents a minority, decided that we were no longer capable of administration, that we did not know the people among whom we lived, and, that we were too generous in giving out-door relief. This afternoon I came back from the South of England where I have been on a, propaganda tour, on behalf of the trade union and Labour movement, and my progress was stopped by a reception which was being given to King Hallelujah and his lady Oh-be-Joyful. Their pictures appear in every evening newspaper and I suggest to the hon. Gentlemen opposite that before we part with these Royal visitors, whom we are all pleased to see—on the pictures—it will cost this country as much as the Poor Law relief of West Ham for the next 12 months. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, I will bet that when the Estimates are presented, if we ever get them, it will be found that King Hallelujah and his wife have cost this country more than the poor of West Ham will cost for the next 12 months.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I understand that this Bill does not apply to West Ham at all.

Mr. JONES: I am sorry to disagree, but when I approached Mr. Speaker to ask for the opportunity of speaking, he told me that this was a general Bill and likely to be extended.

Miss LAWRENCE: On a point of Order. I would point out that the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Act, which is extended by the Bill, has reference to any board of guardians.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Clause 1 of the Bill refers to the extension of certain provisions as set out in the Schedule, and, when I turn to the Schedule, I find that it deals with the continuance of a Section which provides for the temporary extension of charges on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund and also with certain provisions of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act. Whether these apply to Greater London or not, I am not clear.

Sir K. WOOD: As my right hon. Friend the Minister has already stated, the Bill is confined to London with the exception of the grant of certain borrowing powers—to which no one has taken
any objection—and the question of these borrowing powers does extend to other parts of the country.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not the case that we are now discussing an Amendment which raises very much bigger issues than those contained in the Bill—an Amendment which was moved expressly to enable us to point out the futility and stupidity of the Minister in bringing forward such a Bill?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the Bill were restricted in its effects, even though the Amendment apparently raised much broader issues, I do not think hon. Members would be able to discuss matters which would not be relevant to the Second Reading of the Bill, if no Amendment had been moved. After the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, of course it would appear that, if the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones) confines his remarks to the question of the borrowing powers, he will be in order, but I understand that the authority which is to control the expenses of the guardians will only be able to do so with regard to the Metropolitan boroughs.

Mr. GREENWOOD: May I point out that the Minister referred at considerable length to the West Ham Board of Guardians?

Sir K. WOOD: Only by way of illustration.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman referred to West Ham by way of illustration, I do not think can prevent the hon. Member for Silver-town from countering the illustration.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Do I take it, then, that this Bill refers to the borrowing powers of authorities in all counties or county boroughs—to my constituency of Merthyr?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member will be glad to know that it extends and continues those powers.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Yes, and you have overriding powers in it as well. In that case, this Debate is going on for some time.

Mr. JONES: I thank you very much, Sir. I do not pretend to he an expert in form. I do not understand how Bills
are drafted. I do understand how Bills are paid. We in West Ham are the orphans of the storm. Originally the Bill was introduced to deal with the Metropolitan area. We are just outside it. We are not as well placed as Poplar or Greenwich or any of the other parts of London. I believe the right hon. Gentleman opposite would admit that, if he walked from Poplar to Canning Town, he would not know where he was. He would not know the difference between
one part and another. If he walked from Canning Town to Tidal Basin he would not know when we had left Canning Town. We know where we are, geographically, but we do not know where we are financially. In this case we are up against it. The Metropolitan Asylums Board—a proper name for them because it suggests a home for mental inefficients—is a nominated board. Will the hon. Gentleman opposite tell us is this the policy the Government are going to pursue? Is it their policy that men and women nominated by the Government are going to be the dominating factor in local government? This is only part of it. They have tried it on in West Ham, and it has come off because West Ham has a bad name, but I want to say to hon. Members opposite, whether they believe it or not, that the men and women in West Ham whom they have pilloried would, bear favourable comparison with themselves in the matter of honesty and probity in public life. Their only crime was that they knew the people whom they represented, and they did their best for them.
Is this kind of legislation to become continuous? Remember, you are creating a boomerang. You may be clever and powerful to-day, but when the time comes we may be able to reverse the situation and, instead of reactionary administrators appointed by the Government, we may have Socialists appointed to act as Commissioners. I do not want to see that. I do not want to see people put into positions unless they have been elected. I want democracy to operate. I believe in democracy, and, therefore, I am opposing this Bill, which proposes to hand over to a nominated body composed of mental and physical inefficients in the main. The Metropolitan Asylums Board is composed mainly of gentlemen who have lost their way. It is a kind of retiring
home for politicians of both parties who did not know where to go, and most of them are well dressed up and do not know where to go—[Laughter]—It is all very nice for Members to smile who do not know these people, but we have met them and come into contact with them on the Metropolitan Water Board, the Lea Conservancy, and the Thames Conservancy. You can see them there, retired Generals and Admirals who never saw the sea; they are all there, swanking with their decorations thick upon them.
These are the men to whom you are going to hand over the control of Poor Law administration in London, with the possibility of extending it to the other parts of the country, because we have been told that when we go for borrowing powers we have to come to these persons, who know nothing about the conditions under which the people live. We in West Ham have had some experience of them, and they will not trust us to vote, but the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will have to go at the next election for votes to the same people whom they have disfranchised. If we are not good enough to vote for the guardians, are we good enough to vote for a Member of Parliament? Why not make it universal and disfranchise us all, both for national and local purposes? The object of this Bill is to make the local representatives absolutely come under the control of a nominated body. We know what London is. The London County Council elections proved it—the power of the purse and the motor car. You know that we of the Labour party could not fight against those conditions. We had to do the best we could under improper conditions to try and hold our own, and you gained a pyrrhic victory. I hope it will do you good, but you cannot hold us back, because we know that we shall win in the end.
What is the good of talking about democracy, as the Prime Minister did the other night? What did he mean? He reminds me of Kruger's speech just before the South African war: "I will give them votes, but I am going to count them." You do not mind giving votes to the workers so long as you have tie power to control them and appoint Commissioners to regulate them. We in West Ham are not afraid, but London is, of course, in a different situation. They
have some money given to them out of the Common Poor Fund. I heard hon. Members opposite talking about the money they pay out. A penny rate in Wesminster brings in £36,000. Where does that money come from? It comes from the labour of the people of London and the increased value of property along the Embankment and other parts of the West End. We in West Ham can raise only £5,000 on a penny rate, and our rates are held up to ridicule; yet, as a matter of fact, in relative values to the administration of public necessity, our rates are lower than those of Westminster, but we never get a penny piece of credit for it. They are the exemplars of municipal economy and administration; yet they have bigger slums in Westminster than we have in West Ham.
Therefore, we are entitled to say that this Bill is simply a piece of the usual Conservative camouflage, an attempt to blind the people's eyes to the real issue. If you want to do something in the matter of Poor Law administration, bring in what the right hon. Gentleman himself used to advocate, namely, the unification of public services. I do not want to refer to the dead, but his right honourable father, whose speeches I very often read when I was not a Member of this House, foreshadowed the time when all these great public services would be amalgamated and administered. What have we got now? It is simply playing with the situation. West Ham is not responsible for its own poverty, and Poplar is not responsible. Hon. Members on the benches opposite have been boasting about what they have been able to do, but what have they done? They have sold their workhouses and closed their infirmaries because of the growth of great office buildings and hotels in their city, but the overflow is down to West Ham, Tottenham, and all the outlying parts of London. They have made money out of it, because they have sold one of their institutions for £44,000 to one of the poorest districts in the East End of London. Therefore, they say, "Save us from the storm; pass this Bill for five years." I hope it will be five years' penal servitude for the proposers of it.
The proposition behind this Bill is of such a character that it means reaction in all forms of local government. The real problem that the right hon. Gentleman
has to face is how to reform the Poor Law, and he knows that, when he starts on that, he has to attack his own people. He knows very well that the problem of Poor Law reform will mean the attacking of all the social evils and social privileges in our present civilisation. Therefore, we are up against this Bill, not because of what it proposes to do, but because it will not tackle the real problem, the problem of poverty in all its reality. At the last General Election we were told by the Prime Minister and his supporters that they were out to attack all these great social problems on scientific, statesmanlike lines. We were dreamers. We lived in a fool's paradise. They were the only people who mattered. What are they doing now? Simply presenting us with sticking-plaster for wooden legs. No single proposition have they produced yet to deal with any of our problems, industrial, economic or political. I am speaking for myself; I am not a Front Bencher; I am very much a back bencher, but I want to say that the proposition made in this Bill is simply a "try-on." By means of the Clauses dealing with borrowing powers every authority is going to be brought under this Bill. The time will come when we will not come to you to borrow money. We will make you come to us and borrow. The only thing which you will not be able to borrow from us will be political capacity.
This Bill is simply an attempt to continue what you have been doing all the time you have been in office and in power, namely, to make barriers against the growing democracy, and to queer the pitch; you say to your friends that when you are succeeded by any other Government opposite to your own, it will take all their time to clear away the reactionary legislation that you have carried. I am one of those who believe that we will not waste much time in clearing away all the reactionary barriers which you have erected. I should like to see the time come when we have the power to clear you and your barriers out of existence.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going a little wide of the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. JONES: I have as much right to be a prophet as Mr. Baldwin has.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must not refer to the Prime Minister by name. If the right hon. Gentleman were to prophesy on this Bill, it would be my painful duty to stop him.

Mr. JONES: I beg his pardon, I meant the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. He made a prophecy the other evening outside the House, and that was in order. I am making a prophecy inside that, when the next opportunity arrives, the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to be a prophet. I happen to be an orphan in this case. I only want to say that this reactionary legislation is being prepared for a purpose; it is to prevent the Government's successors from being able to do the things that they want to do; it is an attempt to erect a kind of fence against any possible progressive legislation in future. For that reason, I oppose the Bill, although we in West Ham have the advantage of the Common Poor Fund. London has been cut up into watertight compartments. Certain parts of London are sure of returning Conservative members to boards of guardians, and, automatically, they become part of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and all the other parts which are not so reactionary will have to submit themselves to this body—a junta controlled by the Conservative party. What a beautiful thing it is! I wonder what our comrades opposite would say if, when the Labour party became a majority in this House, they said that they were going to have a board all on their own to see that their people could not do what they wanted? That time may come. All this legislation will come back to you eventually. I am going to live to see it. The time will come when you will not be able to carry on these proposals. You can do what you like now, but you cannot keep on doing it. We who live on the outskirts of London, in spite of the difficulties which you have placed in our way, in spite of all your Commissioners and appointed boards of guardians, are going to carry on, and as soon as we get our opportunity we will send them back to you with their tails between their legs. This Bill is an insult to the electors of London, and it is only
part and parcel of the policy which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite have adopted ever since they have been in office, and that is to try and cripple the workers of London and the country in the control of their own affairs.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I confess that the answer which I got a moment or two ago from the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary rather opened my eyes to the extent to which this Bill can be made to cripple and hinder local government in the country. I am not surprised that the Minister of Health, in his speech introducing the Bill, dealt rather lightly with that particular aspect of it which concerned the boroughs outside London. It is ostensibly a Bill dealing with the Metropolitan area, but, on an examination, we discover that it refers to every local board of guardians outside London. That is rather an alarming situation, because the Bill is going to solidify the Act of 1921 for a further five years. It is going to crystallise the condition which obtains now, and we are going to find that outside London, in all the distressed areas, the relief which we expected and hoped to get, and which has been promised year after year for the last 10 or 12 years, is to be deferred for another five years. When one contemplates the deplorable condition of the area in which my constituency is situated, the whole of Glamorgan, for instance, or South Wales, when one contemplates the bankrupt condition of every board of guardians, when one thinks of the want and destitution which faces the people, and the 24 per cent. of unemployment, with no hope of any relief whatever, one can realise that it is a situation which may very well fill all local authorities with despair.
A day or two ago I asked the Ministry of Labour what was being done towards assisting unemployed men, so as to take them out of the purview of the local authorities. After all we have heard about the training centres to be set up, what does the Ministry of Labour report regarding South Wales, with its scores of thousands of men who have been unemployed for three, four or five years, with all its local authorities breaking down, with young men denied a single pennyworth of relief from anywhere at all and with poverty-striken parents compelled
to maintain their sons? What help has been given in the training of young men there I was told that 121 men had been sent to Dudley, 51 to another area and five to a third area. Out of all the thousands of men out of work, out of all the thousands of men who are literally starving, training has been found for fewer than 200. The whole thing is sheer lunacy, and I am here to protest to the utmost of my power against the policy pursued by the Government.
The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) has talked of what a penny rate produces in West Ham—£5,000. That is affluence by contrast with what it produces in Merthyr Tydvil, where it brings in only about £960. Instead of introducing this miserable Measure to curtail and cripple democratic authorities here in London, and to extend the powers of the Ministry of Health over boards of guardians in the provinces, why do not the Government accept the responsibility for what is happening and do something statesmanlike, something that one could recognise as an earnest attempt to grapple with the situation instead of playing with it in this miserable, perfunctory way? The whole thing is a cheating and a deluding of the people of this country, and this Government, who represent enormous power, enormous wealth and enormous influence, ought to be ashamed of the line they are taking on this question.
To-day a reception is being given to His Majesty the King of Afghanistan. [Interruption.] I am not going to condemn it at all. The King of Afghanistan comes here on a State visit, and no one wishes him any harm at all. He has come here for the purpose of studying Western civilisation, and studying the people of England. I wish he could have been in this House this afternoon to listen to the speeches. He would begin to understand that probably he has not much to learn from us about dealing with poverty. Indeed, I should be surprised to learn that there were many people in his own country, poor and resourceless as it may be in comparison with our own, whose condition is worse than that of thousands and thousands of people whom I can find in
this land. It is fair to assume that there are few people indeed in his country who need the help that we find it necessary to give to our own people. I hope he will see something of our country, and I wish he would read the speech of the Minister for Health in which it was admitted that in West Ham—or, at any rate, one district down there, I forget exactly which—there were 31,000 people being given relief, even under his reformed board of guardians. With all their harshness and with all their desire to cut down expenditure as much as possible, this miserable abortion of a Poor Law relief committee has to give assistance to no fewer than 31,000 people. Let the King of Afghanistan understand that, and then perhaps he will learn that there is something about this country to avoid as well as to copy. At least I hope he will have the common-sense not to provide himself with a Government such as we have got, because I am sure that if he does so, there will be no progress in Afghanistan.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The Minister of Health, in moving the Second Reading, spoke about the generosity of the contributing boroughs in London, saying some of the receiving boroughs had been given as much as 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of their Poor Law expenditure out of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. A contribution of 30 per cent. sounds a great deal, but it would be more to the point if we were discussing percentages of the whole of the rates of London. Such a percentage is nothing in the light of the discrepancy in the incidence of rating between such boroughs as Wandsworth and Westminster on the one hand and Poplar and Bermondsey on the other. London is one industrially and commercially, and from the standpoint of dealing with its poverty it ought to be one financially. I believe in the complete equalisation of rates. If we had complete equalisation of rates in London a percentage of 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. would be something worth talking about. What generosity is there in well-to-do boroughs giving a proportion of their wealth to the poorer boroughs of London in order to relieve the poverty stricken people there? Well-to-do boroughs are inhabited by well-to-do people. Those who live in Westminster or in Wandsworth
have made money. I do not put up the argument that they do not contribute anything in the way of service to the community, but certainly their comfortable circumstances, which are reflected in the amount of rates which can be raised in those boroughs, are the result of the common toil and common commercial activities of the whole of the people of London. Surely it is ethically wrong for the well-to-do boroughs to talk, or for the Minister to talk, about their generosity.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I never used the word "generosity."

Mr. MONTAGUE: The Minister says that he did not use the word "generosity." My recollection is that he did, but I will not contradict him. The purport of his remarks was that these boroughs were doing something exceptional—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, my point was that the boroughs which are receiving were doing something exceptional.

Mr. MONTAGUE: That may be, but the point of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that the well-to-do boroughs were generous and were giving to the boroughs where poverty is rife. I say there is no question of generosity, but that it is a matter of duty and that an even larger amount ought to be contributed than the 9d. per head given under the Metropolitan Poor Fund system. After all, the people who live in the well-to-do and comfortable quarters of London live there of their own choice. They do not live in the boroughs where poverty is rife, but these are the boroughs which provide the profits upon which their wealth is built. The people who live in Poplar and Bermondsey are the people who make dividends for those who live in Wandsworth, and the other richer parts of London. That was the impression conveyed by the Minister of Health, and there is no question of generosity. There would be much more reason to talk about it from that point of view if we had a proper system of equalisation of the whole of the rates of London under which the rates would be levied upon all the property in London and the land values. I admit the idea that local authorities should, under all circumstances, be allowed to do as they like is altogether
wrong. That is not a Socialist principle. If there is public control over Poor Law expenditure or anything else, there should also be a sense of responsibility and democracy in that public control. There is no democracy in the proposal to set up this new body to control expenditure. The Metropolitan Asylums Board is not an elected authority, because its members are nominated. It is not constituted for the purpose of controlling Poor Law expenditure. This Bill is not aimed at Westminster or Wandsworth, but it is aimed at Poplar and Bermondsey, and you leave it to a nominated body to hold up at any time a considerable part of the Poor Law expenditure of London.
When the case of West Ham was considered some time ago, the Minister of Health thought it necessary that the House of Commons representing the whole nation should decide the fate of West Ham so far as the administration of the Poor Law was concerned, and the right hon. Gentleman appointed his own Poor Law authority for West Ham. Under this Bill if the same circumstances should arise the non-democratic members of the Metropolitan Asylums Board can do what the Minister of Health has done in the arrangements he has made for West Ham. It is one thing for a drastic proposal such as that which the Minister of Health was responsible for relating to West Ham to be brought before the House of Commons, but it is altogether another thing for a hole-and-corner body like the Metropolitan Asylums Board to be given such stupendous power to determine the method by which Poor Law relief should be administered in particular parishes in London. I will take West Ham as an illustration. Anyone who knows the circumstances of West Ham will not deny that there was a certain amount of maladministration.

Mr. J. JONES: The representatives of West Ham have repeatedly asked for a public inquiry, judicial or otherwise, to prove the statements that there has been corruption and maladministration in West Ham, and every time our request has been refused. Hon. Members know perfectly well that if there had been corruption and maladministration in West Ham the guilty parties could have been sent to the Old Bailey, and I have no hesitation in repudiating those charges.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order, although, if the hon. Member who is speaking likes to give way, the hon. Member may correct him.

Mr. JONES: West Ham has been so often in the pillory that I must deny those charges. We have challenged the Government to investigate these matters, and we have defied them to send us to the Old Bailey. On every occasion, our demand for an inquiry has been refused.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I did not make any charges of corruption.

Mr. JONES: The hon. Member said that he agreed that there had been maladministration in West Ham.

Mr. MONTAGUE: If I used so unfortunate a word as "maladministration," I am prepared to withdraw it. I did not mean anything that would render a person liable to be sent to the Old Bailey. In the case of my own borough, I know that there are points of criticism in regard to the administration which are perfectly justified. If the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) had waited a little while to hear what I was going to say, he would have seen that what I meant was that, so far from there being view was that the situation has been anything to criticise in West Ham, my view was that the situation has been handled efficiently and effectively by the Labour party and by the people with whom the hon. Member for Silvertown is associated. I do not agree with the ordinary kind of nonsense which is talked about West Ham. The trouble about the administration of the Poor Law in West Ham is that people interfere with the legitimate policy adopted by the Guardians without understanding the poverty which exists there, and the need for giving adequate and reasonable relief. The result of such interference has been to make poverty in West Ham worse than it was before. That is my point, and, if the word "maladministration" does not express my meaning, I am very grateful for the opportunity of being able to withdraw that word, because I do not wish to get at cross purposes with the hon. Member for Silvertown.
A body which is going to deal with public funds provided by a number of boroughs in London should have a certain amount of collective responsibility. That body should have some real responsibility.
That body should have some real responsibility for the way in which money is going to be spent. We regard this Measure as thoroughly undemocratic, and I agree with the statement which has been made by the hon. Member for Silver-town that the policy of the Government is that the people who are out of work and poor, and without adequate facilities for living, should be kept as low as it is possible to keep them. That is not our policy. We say that the poverty of London and of all those districts at which this Measure aims is something for which the whole of London is responsible; in fact, the whole country is responsible. Therefore, we ask that irresponsible people who live in the more amenable quarters of London and its surroundings should not be allowed to interfere with Poor Law administration in Poplar and Bermondsey. We say that these people should not have the power of holding up the local government of London and practically dictating terms to it.
I would like to conclude by reading, if it has not been already referred to in the Debate, a resolution that was passed at a Conference held at the Westminster City Hall on Tuesday last. It was a Conference of representatives of the metropolitan borough councils which receive grants from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and it passed this resolution. I know, of course, that the boroughs represented were those that receive grants, but they are not all Labour boroughs by any means. They are boroughs that are at grips with the poverty problem and the Poor Law problem in their respective localities, and this is the resolution that they passed unanimously:
That the temporary legislation contained in the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Acts, 1923–26, providing, inter alia, that the increase in the charges upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund in respect of indoor relief from 5d. to 1s. 3d. per head per day shall be continued, and that the expenditure on outdoor relief throughout London should be equalised from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.
And they desire—these are both Municipal Reform and Labour bodies, who know the circumstances and are face to face with the problem—
that the maximum expenditure in respect of outdoor relief to be charged upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund should be increased to one shilling per head per day.
I hope that there will be some opportunity during the Committee stage of this Bill to move to the effect that there shall be an increase in the amount given to those boroughs where the degree of poverty is so great as to require extraordinary expenditure. The reason is that we regard London as a whole; we regard London as responsible for the whole of the poverty problem in London. We do not believe that poverty is a necessity of modern civilisation. It is the result of the system under which we live, and of the idea, which exists under that system, that those who are poor through no fault of their own should be despised by those who in the past have made profits out of them, and that they should be forced to live the mean and miserable lives that they have to live even when they are in work, let alone when they are out of work and dependent on Poor Law relief. We want that kind of system to end, and we want to be just and reasonable towards them while the system actually exists.

Mr. SULLIVAN: It is not customary for Members from other parts of the country to intervene on a Bill of this kind, but I must say that, when I came in to listen to the Debate, I thought at first that this was a perfectly innocent Bill. Unfortunately, however, the interruptions and the replies to the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary have helped to open our eyes to the dangers of the Bill. I wonder why people get into such a frame of mind that they think that poverty is a crime. I am astonished at times to hear people apologizing, and almost inclined to attribute all sorts of original sin to people who have become poor through no fault of their own. I remember, when I was younger, hearing leading politicians advocate the unification of rates, and at that time the Liberal party were very strong on that idea. The object of unifying rates is that people in a locality which is better favoured than others should assist in carrying the common burden. In London, unfortunately, the poor are compelled to live wherever they can get shelter, or wherever they can get work, and, when work has failed them in those localities, they still have to live there, while the wealthier part of the population moves out to better surroundings. You then have the poor being com-
Pelled to carry the burden of unemployment, and you have the wealthy with very little in the way of rates to pay, because they have run away from the place where they made their money.
I would not apologise at all for the claim made by London Members that the rates should be uniform all over London. Why should they not be uniform? The people who are wealthy are only wealthy because other people work. It is not because of any additional labour that they have put into the country. In addition to that, we now have whole areas into which people were brought in order to carry on War work. The Government failed to
re-distribute them, and they are left there. The burden of rates is mounting higher and higher, and the only cure that hon. Members on the other side have is to take away the power of the elected representatives of the people. I have heard them defend that, but I am inclined to think that it will be a boomerang which may strike them at some future time. They have superseded certain boards of guardians because they thought they were doing too much for the people whom they represented, but in this Measure they are doing something that no British Government has ever attempted to do—they are actually giving to a non-elected body the power to reduce or increase expenditure. That is a dangerous principle. No matter on what authority I serve, whatever expenditure I advocate, I have to face the electors to justify it, but I do object to nominated people, who do not require to face the electors, having a power of that kind, and I would appeal to the House to look at this matter from that point of view. It is a very dangerous principle, and there is no knowing where it may end.
It may be that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side felt that it was necessary for them to do something. Their party just now appears to be at the top, and I noticed that there was an interruption when it was suggested that they were not in a majority in the country. I do not know the reason for that interruption, because they have not a majority of the electors, and they are doing a lot of things to which the people of this country, once they realise what is being done, will object. I do not think that the British House of Commons is going
to allow anything in the shape of Mussolini yet, either from the Minister of Health or from his Parliamentary Secretary. We have a tradition here. So far we have been a free people. We have certain rights, and now an attempt is being made to take them away, and to give to nominated persons the control of expenditure. I hope and believe that our party at some time will be strong enough to make other suggestions. I would divide the poverty of London. If we are not going to get a uniform rate, I would try to see to it that every borough should carry its fair share of the people who are suffering. In addition to that, I would try to divide the work. I would go even into the West End where there are people who have been unemployed since they were born, whose fathers before them were unemployed, and who would feel insulted if they were offered a job. They do not require to go to work. You should tell them that they have got to take a job, and that if they do not work neither shall they eat. That is the doctrine which we should preach.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is going outside the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I thought I was keeping very close to the line. I made no reference to subsidised royalties, and I never pointed out the danger of financing people who were quite able to look after themselves, or the danger of spending money in the way it is sometimes spent. I take the view that the people of this country have a right to live though the Government have failed to find them work. Every member of the community has that right.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friends on these benches who have spoken about London. I agree with them that the rich cannot live without the poor. If the poor do not provide the wherewithal for them to live, then they will die with the poor. I agree that there should be one rating authority. Why should there be this difference in the City of London as compared with any other great city in the country? Many of them are incorporated boroughs like London, and why there is this difference in the case of London, so as to make it more difficult for the poor to live in the various poor areas in London than in the rich, I could never understand.
I want to ask the Minister if Clause 1 applies to the whole country as well as to London. Clause 1 amends the Act of 1921 and the Amending Act of 1924, which applies to all the authorities in the country, including London. If that be the case as far as the outside authorities are concerned, I can see no help whatever within this Measure. Let the right hon. Gentleman remember what the position is in my own county. We have there 15 Poor Law areas, some of them down and out, with no assessable value so to speak, because of the closing of the pits. We are told that it is because of high rates that industry is going down, and the power to go on borrowing money for the payment of debts incurred will not help the future. What we want is not the power to borrow. Indeed, I am doubtful whether some of the authorities in the County of Durham will be able to live, for they are practically bankrupt. I am not referring to those of the Division of Chester-le-Street. I am referring to the authorities who have done, during these depressed times, just what the Minister and his Department desired them to do. Take the case of Bishop Auckland where there were 13 collieries working, and today there are two. There is no rateable value, and their rates are over 30s. in the £. If they have power to borrow for the future, that will be no help whatever. They are not asking for the power to borrow, but for something far more substantial than that. I ask the Minister to give some relief to these areas which are down and out.
In the county of Durham people cannot buy food, never mind pay rates. They cannot provide themselves with the necessaries of life. In various areas, mothers and children die for lack of nutrition, but, apparently, that does not matter. If the Minister will give a helping hand to these people rather than say to them, "Go and borrow," then we can hope for the future. Is the coal trade to develop? The Minister knows that without the coal trade in my county there are millions of people there who are not going to get the wherewithal of life. Tradespeople just as much as the miners are complaining of the poverty of the people. They say their business is going down, and they are practically bankrupt. I am glad to tell the Minister they are
showing that the policy advocated on these benches is to be their policy in future. It is the policy of seeing to it that the people have the right to live and work. Without the mines, you cannot go on. What is the Minister going to do to help them to go on? There can be no help from anybody but the Minister.
Take the statistics that are offered to us from the Department of Mines. You find that all the sacrifices which have been made have been made by the miners themselves. Cost and wages are where they were, and the royalties are just as much as they were three or four years ago. Nothing whatever has come to our help, and is the Minister going to say that we must borrow to get out of our troubles when we cannot borrow from anybody because, owing to the depressed conditions, people will not lend us money at all? Is the Minister prepared to lend the money to pay off these bills and give us a longer period than five years? Is there nothing he can do to help these down-trodden areas, which are down and out through no fault of their own? If he cannot do that, then this Bill will not be worth the paper it is written on as far as we are concerned.
I do plead with the Minister to do something more. This will not help. It will leave us practically worse off than we were before. Let him help us and give us a chance to start again. I feel sure that better results will accrue if he will come to the aid of these impoverished areas in my county. Not only is the mining area down and out but, because of it, shipbuilding is down and out, and so are engineering and other trades. The remedy, apparently, is that we must borrow for another five years, which will make things harder than they are at the present time. We cannot expect to stop unemployment, which has been growing month by month. The records of last year from January to October show that the number of unemployed miners increased every month, and something like 12,000 more men were thrown on to unemployment benefit or on to the guardians. Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Minister of Labour and see if something cannot be done to ease the position there? Thousands of men have been compelled to go to the guardians, when they ought
to have been receiving some relief from another source, or from the Unemployment Relief Fund. That ought to be a question which the Minister should take up with advantage. I appeal to him to help us in a way which will be of some advantage, rather than offer us something which will be of no advantage whatever, but rather the reverse and will make us poorer.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think the House, taken as a whole, has not realised the importance of what the right hon. Gentleman described as a small Bill. Most of his Bills are small ones, but they are all most pernicious. They are the worst kind of legislation, I should think, that the House has passed or discussed for very many years. He has not brought in a single Bill in the last two or three years but those that curtail the rights of local authorities. He will be remembered as the statesman, who, having come into public life as an ardent municipal administrator, when he reached this House became the instrument for destroying local government. There is something about his early days that most people, like me, who have some regard for local administration, respect, but he wipes that all out when, on behalf of his party, and from a purely partisan point of view, in order to destroy the policy of those with whom he disagrees uses the brute force of a huge majority to rob the elected authorities of the rights this Parliament has conferred on them.
I do not believe any other House of Commons would have allowed him to smuggle his legislation through. He brought in a Bill to wipe out boards of guardians and defended it by setting up a whole cloud of suspicion about men who, under very great difficulties, had been trying to deal with an almost impossible situation in West Ham. He has done the same at Bedwellty and at Chester-le-Street, and he has the audacity to tell us of the fruits of the work that he and those instruments that he appointed at West Ham. There was a glow of pride in his face when he told us that they had reduced the numbers from nearly 70,000 down to 30,000. He might reduce them to nothing at all. He has only to refuse to give people relief and he need have no poor rate at all. You have only to say to the unemployed or to the able-bodied who come to you, or
to the widows, or to the sick, "You have been here a long time; you have been sick a long time; you are getting older and you need more assistance, or you have been out of work a long time, and therefore the time has come to strike you off," and you will soon clear off the poor rate, and, as you say, restore the finances of these districts.
That, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is a policy which succeeds only for a short time. He knows enough of the history of local government and of the Poor Law to know that the eternal principles of 1834, which a roving commission put into operation, were discovered to be unworkable, and that from 1834 to the present time men who preceded him in his office and held the view that he is attempting to carry through now, though they have apparently succeeded for a short time, have been swept from power and another policy has had to be pursued. We who take our stand in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman have never said that we believed it was a good thing merely to give able-bodied men and women money for nothing. I came into this House in 1910 and made a speech within two days of my election the whole burden of which was that we wanted to stop the demoralisation of our people by giving them money for nothing. We wanted work for them, and that has been our policy from that day to this, and long before. Keir Hardie, when he came into this House and first raised the banner of the unemployed, and was received with the contumely and contempt with which all pioneers are received, did not ask that men should be given money for nothing. He asked that they should have work, and, failing work, maintenance, but work first of all.
I think the right hon. Gentleman when he has time to think this thing out will be a little ashamed of his speech when be tries to understand, if he does not understand now, the meaning of the figures that he so glibly rolled off. He said that he would take the boroughs in pairs, and that was a fair way of comparing them. He knows, or ought to know, that Stepney cannot be compared with any other borough in London and the fact that Stepney, in addition to a Gentile board of guardians has its own Jewish board of guardians and has a
population very largely Jewish vitiates altogether a comparison with any other borough. He knows perfectly well, too, that it is no use trying to ride off and say, it is Labour administration that has brought about this condition of affars in London. He knows as well as I do that out of the 32 boards of guardians in London, there are not six that are controlled by Labour majorities, and that those unions that are spending the money that he says is granted them from the richer unions are not controlled by Bolshevists or by people like myself, but are controlled very largely by members of his own party, who are no better and no worse than the rest of us, but are forced into the position of spending large sums of money on Poor Law relief.
Unfortunately, I was not able to be here the whole of the time that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) was speaking, but, if the right hon. Gentleman will consult his officials, he will be told that for years before the date from which he started Bethnal Green never gave a penny of outdoor relief. It was one of the unions that was known in London, just as Whitechapel was, as a non-outdoor relief union. What broke down that policy? It was not a Labour majority. The thing that broke it down was that at the end of the War a considerable number of ex-Service men had no other resource than to go to the Poor Law, and there was not a board of guardians at that time that dared refuse outdoor relief to ex-Service men. The right hon. Gentleman himself would not have dared to do it. If he likes to go over the history of the various boards of guardians, he will find that from, I believe, 1860 to the end of the War there was no outdoor relief at all, and that then, when the men came back from the War and the slump in trade began, the guardians were forced to break down their old policy of no outdoor relief. The right hon. Gentleman stands at that Box and talks about Poplar and other boards and other men whose shoe lachets he is not worthy to unlace with a superior kind of contempt, as if they were people of no account, forgetting all the time that they are giving voluntary time and service to the public to carry on public work.
There is not a single one of these unions that he is now charging with extravagance, with mal-administration, with giving relief too generously, but has to give the right hon. Gentleman every week a return of the names of every case that receives relief under these conditions. If Poplar, Bethnal Green and those other unions have been throwing money away indiscriminately, and have not been doing their duty, how is it that until the present time they have not been interfered with by the right hon. Gentleman and his inspectors? If they have been doing wrong, they have been doing wrong in collusion with the right hon. Gentleman. If they have given away too much money, the right hon. Gentleman is as responsible as they are. Therefore, it is useless for him to come here to-night and plead as though he wanted some new power. The right hon. Gentleman has got all the power any Minister needs. He said he would not like to be the person to exercise the power. I shall have a word or two to say about that in a moment. As to whether he has the power, as far as able-bodied people who get relief are concerned, he can stop relief at any moment in any case he pleases, and in regard to any board he pleases, and he knows that that is true. During all these years, as we are told, that the boards have been doing what they ought not to have been doing, they have been doing it with the cognisance of the right hon. Gentleman, and, as I say, in collusion with the right hon. Gentleman.
The reason the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have not interfered is the reason that a noted nobleman gave to the country a coupe of years ago, when, speaking at a public meeting, he said it was perfectly true that when the War stopped, and for a few years after the War, it was necessary to give out-relief, and it was necessary to give large unemployment pay, because if we had not done so there might have been a revolution. But things are different now. Everything has settled down, and we must cut down this relief. If it was right to give adequate assistance when were afraid of revolution, it is right to give adequate relief and assistance now, even though the people are quieter than they were before. There is no more justification for refusing adequate relief to-day
than there was in 1922, 1923 and 1924. Further than that, not only the right hon. Gentleman but all his predecessors are in exactly the same boat, and it is no use the right hon. Gentleman talking as if the boards or guardians themselves have been acting absolutely without his cognisance, and, as it were, in a hole-and-corner sort of way. The returns have had to go up, and he knows the sort of formula that his officials have sent back, namely, that they do not object, and because of that, in the main, the auditor has allowed the expenditure.
There is another point of view. If it is only control of extravagant expenditure that he requires, he has not only the auditor, who can surcharge and ruin a man who gives away too much relief, but he possesses the power which comes from the original Poor Law Act itself. He has two ways of curbing boards of guardians—his own power and the power of the auditor—and he knows perfectly well that such powers are now being exercised in such a fashion that most London boards have not the least discretion as to what they shall give in relief to any particular case. Therefore, there is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to come here to-night and ask that some new authority should be set up to relieve him and the auditor of what the law has put upon them in this regard. I objected to the power that was given to the auditor, but there it is.
Another thing I would like to say about the right hon. Gentleman's speech is with regard to the figures and the comparison of districts and rich boroughs generally which he gave. I said, when the conference was held in Westminister, where Mr. Hunt, the clerk to the Westminster Council, and myself came to an agreement and afterwards put it before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), that I considered the Westminster people had behaved in a very generous manner in meeting us in the fashion they did. It is perfectly true that not one of us who were parties to that agreement ever imagined that this sort of arrangement would go on for all these years. We thought it was a purely temporary thing pending the complete reform of the Poor Law. I say to those who represent Westminster, and to my hon.
Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates), with whom I worked at least in a very happy sort of way—we discovered that when we were doing work we could agree more than when arguing first principles—it is no use imagining that they can, as it were, put themselves in a corner from the rest of London. They are absolutely dependent upon us. Whether we are dependent upon them is another matter. It is often asked, What would the poor do without the rich? I would like the rich to ask themselves what they would do without the poor? Those who do the work of the world could probably get along when those who do not do it would not be able to get along.
The right is being claimed of determining how this money shall be used, and while I agree that you have a right to a certain control, it is rather a new doctrine to say that those who find the money—those who pay the heaviest taxes—have the right to say how it shall be spent. If that be a right doctrine, one of these days you will want to allow only the representatives of the Super-taxpayers to come here to determine how we shall spend the taxes of the country. It is a sort of extension of the doctrine which is beloved by certain hon. and right hon. Gentlemen that limited liability companies ought to have votes as limited liability companies because they pay more rates. I believe there was a time in the country when it was asserted that the people who were rated higher than their neighbours ought to have a bigger say in the control of things. I thought we had got away from that until I listened to the right hon. Gentleman and read his rag of a Bill. He is introducing the doctrine that the well-to-do are to have a bigger voice than other people in regard to how the money is to be spent. I do not view it from that point of view at all. I take London as a whole. I am not a born Londoner, but I am a Londoner by adoption. I am very proud of London, with all its slums, with all its dirt, with all its Bolshevism and all the other isms. It is as good as any other city in the world. I do not discriminate between South Kensington and Bow and Bromley, where I live, I do not discriminate between the people. I believe we are all interdependent one on another. I believe that in the long run
our problems are very much the same. I believe that the difficulties that we have to face in the East End are difficulties that Kensington ought to shoulder with us, as we shoulder any that you have to face in North Kensington.

Mr. GATES: We do.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Minister of Health says that he wants to satisfy the principle that those who find the money shall call the tune. I suggest that the proposal of the Bill does nothing of the kind. Who are these nominated people? Why should they have any voice in the matter at all? They do not pay. None of them lives, or very few of them live, in the county of London. Some of them live at Bexley in Kent: some at West Norwood, parts of which, I think, are outside the county of London. Another one lives at Weybridge, another at Upper Warlingham, in Surrey, and so on. Why should they have anything to say? Who are they that they should be called upon to review me, for instance? They may be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) said, very good dry-land admirals, but what do they know about finance? Read the names of the men and women who are on the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and you will find that there is not a financier among them. You will find that there is not one of them who has had any more experience than my friends the dockers and carmen and clerks and others who man the Poplar Board of Guardians. Why they should be given the power of overriding our Estimates I do not know.
The main point I want to make here is that if you are going to have control you must, if it is to be equitable, have with it central responsibility. I object altogether to the Government saying to us, "You have to administer the Poor Law, but you must administer it along the lines which will cost only so much. If you spend more than so much we shall step in and we shall not allow you to have the money." I say that also because the people who come for Poor Law relief, the men and women and children, have to be dealt with individually. To say that this crowd of managers, to whose mercy the right hon. Gentleman is going to consign us, should have the right to tell us what we should give to Mrs. Smith or to Mrs. Brown or to John
Smith or to any of these people, is quite beside the point. They have no knowlede of the circumstances, or of the conditions under which the people are living. On the other hand, if you had a central authority which not only controlled the money but controlled the administration in such a way that the people who have the final vote as to the money came into contact with the individual cases, there would be something to be said for it. But there is nothing to be said in support of this sort of proposal which means control, by a body, of the money, but no responsibility as to how it is administered.
10.0 p.m.
That brings me to a further point. The right hon. Gentleman and this precious Committee of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, it is quite possible, will cut off the money, and it is possible, too, as is happening now, that numbers of people may be driven off the relief list; but the right hon. Gentleman's Department—in this I except him personally—has always been too cowardly ever to take responsibility. They may compel us to refuse to give relief in a case, and if anything happens to that case and there is a coroner's inquest, it is either the relieving officer or the board of guardians that will be called to book, and not the right hon. Gentleman or his Department. They are very careful, when they send out orders, to use language which safeguards themselves. That will happen under this Committee. It will issue instructions as to what we have to do and what money we are to have to expend, and then if anything happens to any particular family, what will be the result? I would like to ask, what would any hon. Member say if, all of a sudden, in Poplar, because we had pushed off some ex-service man who had a wife and children and he went home and cut their throats, as men have done because we have stopped their relief—whom would hon. Members blame? We should get the blame. But the people to be blamed would be the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, because of their policy. If this thing goes through, these people will have no responsibility except to stop our doing what our judgment says we ought to do.
There is another side to the question. The right hon. Gentleman takes a good
deal of credit to himself that where he has exercised a strong hand he has been able to bring down expenditure, and so on. But I want to make this other assertion, that the right hon. Gentleman has used his power with regard to loans in the most disgraceful way, in order to impose his own policy. He was good enough, during one of these Debates, to charge me with having said that I believed it was the right policy, after an election, "To the victors the spoils." I said on that occasion, and I repeat now, that I do not see any difference between a person voting for a candidate who will do him justice in his hour of need, through the board of guardians; I see no greater moral obloquy in a person voting for the people who will act decently under those conditions, than in the action of right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen who say, "Vote for us and we will safeguard your industry. Vote for us and we will put on a tariff in order that your particular business may succeed." I see no difference in morals at all. As the Minister of Health is a good Tariff Reformer, I hope he will just remember that if there be any moral obloquy, there is more excuse for the poor devil who is down and out than for the rich man who wants to get richer and to use Parliament for his own ends.
The right hon. Gentleman in his speech to-day did not give us any hope of a reform of the Poor Law. When the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) moved a Motion in regard to reform of the Poor Law, the right hon. Gentleman responded and said that he was very glad that we were all in favour of it, and that it was going to be done. Why should the country continue with this system? All of us admit that it is a very bad system to work, bad for those of us who have to work it and bad for those for whose benefit we are supposed to administer it. Why should we have to put up with this bad system for years longer, simply because the right hon. Gentleman has not pluck enough to stand up to his friends? Why should the House of Commons submit to allowing this great piece of social reform to be shoved off and not undertaken simply because of a few obscurantist Tories, who are going to revolt against the right hon. Gentleman? If he really had the
courage of his convictions, he would have defied them and have brought in the Bill.
He knows that there is not an authority which has investigated this problem that has not declared against any such scheme as he is bringing forward to-night. I have the right to speak on this side of the subject, because I spent nearly four years on the Poor Law Commission, with the assistance of the right hon. Member for Seaham and his wife, to whom this country owes a tremendous lot for the work she has done in this direction. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the report of the majority and the minority, the Maclean Report and the further report by Lord George Hamilton's Committee, have declared again and again against this mucked-up, patchwork system that he is proposing to perpetuate to-night. He knows perfectly well that the War has accentuated every difficulty that was pointed out by the majority and minority reports. He knows, also, that what he is proposing to-night will not in any way relieve the situation. All that he is going to do is to hand over boards like those of Poplar and Bethnal Green to the tender mercies of his nominated friends on the Metropolitan Asylums Board.
I dare say those who have been listening to us on this subject become very bored and very weary at hearing the kind of devilish reiteration of the story of poverty. Some hon. Members are sent here to safeguard particular interests, others are sent here to forward particular measures of reform. I am sent here by an electorate that is very poverty stricken. I am sent here by men and women many of whom have to subsist on Poor Law relief. I represent people of whom one hon. Member opposite was good enough to say that if he had his way he would rob them of their votes. He said that he would take away their franchise. I want to say to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and all within the sound of my voice: "The problem of poverty in this country is increasing. Within a very few days you will be discussing what is happening in Wales and elsewhere. You cannot escape from it." There have been more discussions in this House, since the War on poverty and the conditions of poverty than I should think there have been in
any Parliament since Parliament ever existed. What is the reason for it? The Prime Minister said, the other night, that I f what we said was true he would be swept out of power. We have not the chance of sweeping them out of power; but they know perfectly well that there has not been a by-election at which the votes have not gone down and down so far as their side is concerned.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may say what they please about this Bill and about our policy in regard to Poor Law, but repression of the poor has never succeeded and it never will succeed. If it were possible for it to succeed, if this thing which the right hon. Gentleman will pass through this House comes into force, if you are able to override the power of the directly-elected authorities in this country, and if the right hon. Gentleman's policy which he has applied to West Ham becomes, through the operation of this Bill, applicable to all the poorer boroughs of London, there is only one thing that he will be doing and one thing this House will be doing, and that will be to destroy the faith of the people in this House and in democracy. This sort of legislation is doing more to make men and women turn their thoughts away from Parliamentary action to other action. It is making men and women feel that it is hopeless to elect people to local authorities.
I know, everybody knows, that the right hon. Gentleman gets his reports from his inspectors, because now inspectors of the Ministry of Health go round the district inquiring here and there. They are quite political agents for the right hon. Gentleman. I know, and the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, the sort of feeling that exists among the people, and it is a very bad and very ugly sign. We who represent the Labour movement have pinned our faith to democratic methods, to Parliamentary and administrative machinery, and it is because the right hon. Gentleman in all the legislation which he has passed within the last two or three years has done his best to destroy administration, that we are against this Bill. We will do our best to defeat it, and if we do not defeat it we will do our best to get a majority here, and then we will
put the right hon. Gentleman and his party in their right place.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made his usual speech. He has made many extravagant charges, one of which, I hope, he will not be able to make again so far as this Bill is concerned. He has accused my right hon. Friend of smuggling Bills through the House of Commons. I thought that was rather a back-handed compliment to his friends sitting behind him. So far as this Measure is concerned, my right hon. Friend and myself are anxious that its provisions should be fully known and that the House should be in a position to know the whole of its points before they vote upon the Second Reading. What is the position with reference to the Act of Parliament which we are now seeking to continue and amend? This Bill seeks to continue the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1923, which will expire in a short time unless this House takes action and passes this Bill. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood), who proposed the Amendment, carefully avoided the real issue. The issue is not whether it is desirable that a Measure of Poor Law relief should be introduced, but what we shall put in the place of an Act which will expire in a few days. I was interested to hear what the hon. Member and his colleagues had to say on the question of Poor Law reform and in their anxiety that the Government should introduce such a measure. I hope they will be satisfied with the Bill when the Government do introduce it, though I rather doubt it. I remember statements made by the Party opposite in regard to a Measure of Poor Law reform. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, dealing with this question, said that he could not undertake at that moment to bring in such a Measure because:
There are pressing matters with which we have to deal now, but as soon as those matters are out of the way, or are got under way, undoubtedly the position of the Poor Law must be very carefully considered—considered with such incidents and such examples and experiences as we have had from Poplar."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1924; col. 1103, Vol. 169.]
I want to know whether hon. Members opposite will agree with the Measure which is contemplated by the Leader of
the Opposition. Then when we had a discussion on Poor Law reform, particularly in connection with what was known as the Mond Order. Mr. Edgar Lansbury, who certainly speaks for a section of the Labour party, wrote to this effect:
He was prepared to support reform of the Poor Law but only on condition that he received guarantees that the methods of relief adopted by Poplar would be retained.
I can assure hon. Members opposite that that will not be the case in regard to the Government proposals; and I doubt very much whether they really want to press their request for the Government to bring in Poor Law reform proposals. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne referred to the discussions which took place in the House when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. He adopted then the rather typical attitude of the Government of that day. He said, "Yes, the question of Poor Law reform must be considered by a conference of all parties. That is our solution." I assure that hon. Member that when the Government bring in their proposals they will take full responsibility. He rather indicated that he left some proposals for Poor Law reform in the Ministry of Health. I have never seen them. As far as I am concerned, I have not had the pleasure and privilege of seeing them. The House can be assured that in due course, and at the right time, proposals for Poor Law reform will be introduced by the Government, and they will take full responsibility for them.
We have to-night to deal with a Bill which seeks to continue an Act of Parliament which will expire very shortly. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), I should have thought, would have come back full of vigour from the London County Council elections and with some ideas as to the situation in London. In what he had to say, however, the hon. Member only re-echoed the statement of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) about Poor Law reform.

Mr. E. BROWN: No, he spoke first.

Sir K. WOOD: We have to deal immediately with a very critical situation, a situation which demands the attention of this House. The proposal which my right
hon. Friend has made will, I at once admit, impose further cheeks and conditions, through the Metropolitan Asylums Board, upon the administration of certain boards of guardians in London. We have chosen for that purpose an authority which has been criticised and condemned by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but, had any other authority been suggested, it would equally have been criticised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The fact is they want no control; they want no effective control.

Mr. GREENWOOD: No. Hon. Members opposite who are here now, were not here when I spoke, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health quite properly put a question to me about control and I answered that we were prepared to accept financial control. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to make a statement such as he has just made.

Sir K. WOOD: I should be sorry to get into a controversy with the hon. Gentleman. What he said was that he was going to develop, in the course of his speech, the kind of control which he was prepared to suggest. I am still waiting for that part of the speech. I suppose that in the course of the time which he occupied the hon. Gentleman forgot to state exactly what his proposals were, but, in deference to him, I shall amend my statement, and I shall say that hon. Gentlemen opposite really do not desire to see effective control of the boards of guardians. All they have suggested tonight is a control, which, I suppose, might come with the Greek Kalends; but they have made no practical suggestion for meeting the immediate necessities of the time. I suggest that the Metropolitan Asylums Board is not deserving of the criticisms which have been passed on it and, as we have had some prophecies here to-night, I venture to predict that it will do its work excellently under this Measure.

Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how that Board is elected?

Sir K. WOOD: I want to assure the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates) that he need be under no anxiety concerning this board. They represent London as a whole, and two-thirds of them are elected by boards of guardians
up and down London. A number of the members of that Board have had direct experience of the administration of the Poor Law because they are guardians themselves, and, as regards their reputation and the work which they have done, they are a body to which this House can safely entrust the administration of this very difficult matter. My hon. Friend need not be under any anxiety whatever in that connection. I want to deal with the real issue which has been raised by the Opposition tonight, because I think we can put aside the elaborate Amendment which they have proposed. Quite frankly, they do not like this Bill. They do not want any check interposed between themselves and the other authorities from which they obtain money, and the real crux of this Bill is that Clause of it which is designed to secure greater care in the administration of Poor Law relief by certain boards of guardians in London and a greater measure of control of the charges on the Common Fund, which I do not hesitate to say I hope will bring an end to an unjust system which compels certain boroughs in London to pay for extravagances and abuses that have been far too prevalent in London during recent years.
It is not surprising that such a provision should meet with the strenuous opposition of the Labour party, a party which, in this House and out of it, has enthusiastically endorsed a Poor Law policy which has pauperised and nearly reduced to bankruptcy certain important areas in the country, and a party which has defended, within the knowledge of this House, the notorious action of the superseded boards of guardians of West Ham, Chester-le-Street, and Bedwellty. We do not expect such a party to support the proposals in this Bill. Indeed, I will confess to hon. Members opposite that, if we had the support of the Labour party for this Bill, we should begin to doubt the desirability of its proposals and their effectiveness as a remedy for the abuses to which I have referred. Nor is it surprising that their principal and most vehement spokesman to-day against these proposals is the proud parent of Poplarism, who boasts of it and glories in it

Mr. W. THORNE: He is a humane man, and that is more than you are!

Sir K. WOOD: The condition and the administration of the locality with which he is chiefly identified in public life constitute one of the outstanding but unhappy examples of the necessity for this Bill. What is the position at this moment so far as London is concerned? It was very well described by the hon. Member himself in 1924, when very much the same issue as we are discussing to-night, namely, the question of the Poplar Order, was the subject of public discussion. What did the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley say on that occasion, describing the situation at Poplar? He said:
At Poplar they had borrowed, and other people had to pay for them, and that was an excellent position to be in.
Poplar's time is getting very nearly to an end, and I unhesitatingly assert to the House that the necessity for the imposition of some supervision and check on the expenditure of this large Fund is overwhelming and long overdue. The present system is undoubtedly a premium on bad administration. The paying boroughs in London have been placed in a thoroughly unjust and impossible position, and no doubt the large sums of money which have been obtained by the receiving boroughs have, in certain cases, been used to support an improvident policy—

Mr. LANSBURY: Why do you not prove all this?

Sir K. WOOD: —and loose and extravagant administration, without any right or power to intervene by the people who have been made to foot the bill. The hon. Member asked me why I do not prove some of these statements. I gladly do so. The hon. Member quite rightly said that a number of general inspectors of the Ministry of Health have been making inquiries into the actions of certain boards of guardians in London, and I have their reports, which were made as the result of very many complaints by ratepayers all over London. I will take the case of Bermondsey as an illustration to prove the statements that I have made. Bermondsey had 1,387 persons per 10,000 of its population in receipt of relief. That is nearly one person in every seven in that district in receipt of relief. I think it is the second highest in England. One of the assistant general inspectors of the Ministry paid a visit there, and in order that his investigations
should be impartial, and that the results could not be questioned in the manner that some of us have heard in this House, he went to one street where there were 11 persons drawing substantial relief. He prepared a report, in which he condemned the guardians for their failure to apply sound principles in their administration of out-relief. He gave a number of cases, one or two of which I will quote as instances of the kind of loose administration which has been taking place in that district. This is one of the cases of the 11 which the assistant general inspector, a man of experience and position, visited in Bermondsey. He reported:
Case D. A strong, fine-looking man, dismissed from his job, and imprisoned for larceny in 1925. Has been in receipt of domiciliary relief almost continuously since, making his income up to 44s. 6d. weekly in cash. His last job brought in 39s. weekly and he stated he is quite willing to accent work if it is now offered to him at 44s. 6d. the amount of his relief, and he asked, 'What could be fairer than that?' His wife earns money, but the amount has not been checked by the board of guardians.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that, week by week, that case had been reported, together with all the others, to his Department?

Sir K. WOOD: I have no knowledge of that.

Mr. LANSBURY: You know it is true.

Sir K. WOOD: At any rate it makes no difference. I propose to quote the report of the assistant general inspector, who makes the following comments on these scandals:
Under the administration of the Bermondsey Guardians it has been possible for a man who has been convicted of defrauding the guardians and assaulting the police and has done a very little occasional work to be maintained in an unsatisfactory home for six years. It has been possible for a lazy fellow to maintain and increase his family in most undesirable conditions, under which seven people live, sleep and eat in one small room, at the expense of the rates for a period of six and a half years. It has been possible for a man, after imprisonment for a gross and impudent fraud on the guardians, to resume at once an income of 46s. a week in cash from the rates.
What was the position of other boroughs in relation to Bermondsey? Under the present arrangements, Bermondsey have received a net grant for the year ending 31st March of £270,865; in other words,
they have received 5s in the £ in relief of their rates at the expense of other boroughs. Bermondsey has expended a quarter of a million of money in outdoor relief, and of this sum no less than £183,000 has been borne by the other boroughs; in other words, nearly 72 per cent. of that expenditure. Under the present arrangements, which we are seeking to alter, there is no effective supervision; there is no adequate safeguard against extravagant expenditure on this scale. [Interruption.]. What I would particularly emphasise is that the Fund is not subject to a public audit at which representations could be made by the contributing authorities.

Mr. W. THORNE: Let us have some more.

Sir K. WOOD: I could continue giving illustrations of the kind of thing which is going on in London to the hon. Gentleman who tempts me to give further examples.

Mr. THORNE: Let us have it all out.

Sir K. WOOD: This is the sort of thing that has been going on far too long in London. The Ministry of Health has no direct power of intervention.

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes it has.

Sir K. WOOD: Boroughs can draw on the Fund to a practically unlimited extent.

Mr. LANSBURY: Not true.

Mr. W. THORNE: You know it is not true.

Sir K. WOOD: There is no doubt about it. The extravagant relief which is the rule in such boroughs as I have instanced is not only a grave financial matter but it is a grave moral matter as well. I suggest to the House that by passing this Bill not only will they make adequate financial provision for the protection of a large number of ratepayers in London but they will also be doing something to prevent the establishment of that pauper state which the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer warned the country against the other day. I admit that this particular Bill is in the line of succession of other useful Bills passed through this
House by my right hon. Friend, and I hope that it will be equally successful and will prevent waste and extravagance in the same way as have those other Measures.

Mr. MAXTON: When the Parliamentary Secretary said "these are the last words I will address to the House," there were ironical cheers from the Labour benches. I did not join in those cheers, because I always take a great pleasure in listening to the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman. To-night his speech has been characterised by the same fluency and the same flippancy that has always characterised his utterances from that despatch Box. The moral indignation which he displays when he is checking hon. Members on this side for apologising for or excusing extravagant boards of guardians is to me the most entertaining feature in his speeches. I remember the time when the right hon. Gentleman sat on these Benches, and I recollect one night when he was defending the tenants in Woolwich because they were being evicted. Some of them were in arrears with their rent for about six years, to say nothing of the rates. The right hon. Gentleman defended those tenants, because they lived in Woolwich and were voters in Woolwich. That kind of thing is not good enough.
It may be a fair political game, but the Parliamentary Secretary reads off to us as fair samples of the unemployed poor of London four cases which were casually visited as if they were four fair examples of working-class houses which the inspector had walked into. I think the first case he mentioned was somebody who had been convicted for larceny; the second was somebody who had been in prison for defrauding the guardians; the third was a lazy fellow, whatever that means, because there are some of us in this House who are not very energetic; and I forget what was the crime of the fourth man. Out of the four persons mentioned as fair samples three of them had been in gaol. What was the crime of one of those who was sent to gaol? Simply that he had got £2 4s. 6d. a week from the guardians. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what was the number of that man's family, and how many persons had to be maintained with that sum?
Does the right hon. Gentleman know that if he had kept that man in gaol it would have cost the country £2 13s. per week? That is the cost of maintaining a prisoner in a Scottish convict prison. The right hon. Gentleman calls £2 4s. 6d. per week lavish expenditure when probably that was the amount of money given to keep the man and his wife, and probably six children. It is disgraceful that the right hon. Gentleman should come here—[Interruption.] I have as much right to get information from my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) as the right hon. Gentleman has to get information from his officials under the Gallery. What is the idea of bringing out the fact that these men have been in gaol? Does he suggest that they should be starved by the boards of guardians because they have been in gaol? Is that our conception of modern decency? The Home Secretary goes round appealing for a fair chance for people who are discharged from gaol, appealing for a new attitude towards the criminal, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health comes forward and suggests that this man, because he has been in gaol, should be allowed to starve. I am not surprised that I get heated.
The gibe is thrown at us across the Floor of the House that we do not oppose, but we are absolutely sick and tired, after four years, of listening to that confounded rubbish from the Front Government Bench. You cannot oppose nothing; it is impossible to put up an opposition to nothing at all. [Interruption.] There is nothing there to oppose; it is nothing but creating prejudice against the working-class population; there is no statesmanship involved in it at all. I am much interested in the fact that the Government yesterday introduced a Bill to extend the franchise to certain people. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers the history of Rome. Presumably, in his junior solicitor days, he would have to learn a certain amount of it; I had to do so, otherwise I would not know anything about it. I remember that in the history of Rome, as the common people forced their way into the seats of office, making inroads into this office and the next office, they found, when they got there, that the powers which had been attached to the office had vanished some-
where else. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite are proposing to give very wide voting powers to the electors of this country, but are making such arrangements that, when they have recorded their votes and directed their representatives to this or the next body, that body has no power to do anything at all.
That is a fraudulent trick on the community. I put it to the Government that the members of these working-class boards of guardians are decent, clean fellows who give £2 4s. 6d. a week to a man with a wife and family. At the week-end I met a gentleman in the country, belonging to a class with whom I do not usually associate—a man who has not worked all his lifetime, but who, I believe, did hold a decorative position in the Army. He told me that the result of the Conservative Budget on his income was to put back into his pocket £120 that had previously gone into the public Exchequer. That is not graft. It is graft if you give something to someone with a wife and six children, but to hand back £120 into the pockets of your own friends, who are Super-tax payers, is not graft. Of course, it now becomes available for investment and for developing the industries of the country. The thing, however, that distresses me about this Bill is this. I enjoy a joke just as much as the right hon. Gentleman enjoys talking the stuff that he talks—I cannot see any other reason why he should smile—but this is a very serious problem for the nation.
The serious thing about it is not the point at which my friends have been hammering to-day. That is the immediate had thing, but the really serious thing is this, that emergency legislation, introduced in 1923 to meet circumstances which at that time were expected to be of a passing nature—emergency provisions for a period of bad employment—having been carried on during this emergency, which has now lasted for nearly five years, is now being extended by the Tory Government for another five years. The right hon. Gentleman winks. The most expressive and intelligible thing that he does is that wink. I ask if this is the serious, considered view of the Cabinet after four years of Conservative Government—of that sane, stable Government that can only be obtained from Conservatives? [HON. MEMBERS:
"Hear, hear!"] The joke of that lies in the fact that they themselves have made themselves believe it. Then in those calm, considered and lucid intervals, which, I presume, even they have, they have come to the conclusion, looking at it quietly and secretly in the Cabinet chamber, that there can be no hope of getting out of the emergency of unemployment and trade stagnation for another five years. They are a Government, and I, thank Heaven, am only a back bencher of the Opposition. If I had sat in a responsible position on the Government Bench for five years, as those right hon. Gentlemen have done, and had to come forward at the end of those five years and tell this House that the position as a whole was worse than it was when I took office, and that I could offer no hope to the nation for five years, I would walk away down to the Terrace and throw myself over.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I think there is a point of view which should be put before the House comes to a decision on this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by flinging a taunt at the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) to the effect that he had repeated his usual speech. If it were true that the hon. Member did follow in general lines a speech he has often made in this House, it is even more true that the right hon. Gentleman himself followed with meticulous care the steps of an argument with which we have become only too familiar. A few days ago we were, at a very late hour of the night, debating the position of West Ham under the new board of guardians, and I ventured to say that we had these continual Debates in this House where on the one side you have quoted cases of hardships and on the other side the right hon. Gentleman finishing up with an appeal for certain ratepayers whose pockets under the measures which he now proposes are to feel a certain amount of relief. The right hon. Gentleman said in the course of his speech that, after all, the real question was not the Amendment on the Order Paper. The real question, he said, was that certain hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the House resented any control over the expenditure of public funds for outdoor relief. If hon. Members above the Gangway will bear with me for a moment,
let us assume for the sake of argument that the right hon. Gentleman is right. Let us assume that all these boards of guardians are behaving in the way he suggests and are actuated by the motives he suggests. What has the right hon. Gentleman done to put an end to that state of affairs? Under this Bill, as far as I can see, what you are going to do is to bring a number of boards of guardians once more into open and direct and continual conflict with another authority set up by the Government.
The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) said the effect of legislation of this kind was that people lost their respect for Parliamentary institutions and began to look for another method of relief for all their difficulties. I think there is a great deal of truth in that. If you have a system which continually produces the overriding of powers which have been given to popularly elected bodies by the Government, there must be something wrong, and I suggest once more that even if all the right hon. Gentleman says about boards of guardians and all he suggests about certain Members above the Gangway were true, he and his colleague have not yet begun to get at the root of these difficulties. May I remind him of a speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in the Debate on the Address, when after three years he suddenly discovered that there was an urgent rating problem dealing with the necessitous areas. Every word of the Amendment is justified because the Government, while dealing with symptoms, even if we admit for the sake of argument that they have deal in the right way with the symptoms, and even if we say this Bill is dealing in the right way with them, have not attempted to deal with the real disease. The real disease here is not that certain people are being cut down in their relief. That is an inevitable consequence of what has happened.
The real disease is that the thing which was once a local difficulty has become a great and grave national problem. That problem was grave when this Government came into office. It has been put before them from above and below the Gangway over and over again in the course of the last three years. I do not
believe in the whole range of problems dealing with unemployment there is one that is so urgent and grave as this dealing with these great necessitous areas. The Chancellor of the Exchequer a few weeks ago admitted it. The Minister of Health, who was not present the other night, was described by the hon. Member for East Ham (Miss Lawrence) as a very efficient administrator who had no imagination for larger problems. If the right hon. Gentleman, having in his own office the documents, proposals, suggestions, the petitions which have come with regard to necessitous areas for years past, has not realised the enormity and the gravity of that problem, indeed he has no imagination at all. I shall vote for the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, once more wholly evaded the real question, which is that his Government has grossly failed to provide, at any rate, the remedies that are possible for one of the greatest ills in our national life.

Miss WILKINSON rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

Mr. BUCHANAN: Mr. Speaker, am I at liberty to continue the discussion? [Interruption.]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose—

Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the favour of your ruling? I understood that at a quarter to four to-day we suspended the Eleven o'Clock Rule. Does not that mean, therefore, that even though it is after eleven o'clock, we can continue the discussion, especially in view of the fact that the Government have no desire to burke discussion on this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought that the hon. Lady gave way to the sense of the House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 128.

Division No. 33.]
AYES.
[3.52 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Briggs, J. Harold
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Albery, Irving James
Briscoe, Richard George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brittain; Sir Harry
Drewe, C.


Allen, J. sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Elliot, Major waiter E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Ellis, R. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burman, J. B
England, Colonel A.


Balniel, Lord
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, weston-s.-M.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Campbell, E. T.
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Carver, Major W. H.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Berry, Sir George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Betterton, Henry B.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fermoy, Lord


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fielden, E. B.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Forrest, W.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Fraser, Captain Ian


Blundell, F. N.
Cooper, A. Duff
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Couper, J. B.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gates, Percy


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainbro)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Brass, captain W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Grace, John


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Daikelth, Earl of
Grattan- Doyle, Sir N.


Grotrian, H. Brent
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macintyre, Ian
Savery, S. S.


Hacking, Douglas H.
McLean, Major A.
Shaw, Lt.-Col- A.D.Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)


Hamilton, Sir George
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smithers, Waldron


Hammersley, S. S.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Margesson, Capt. D.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Haslam, Henry C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Storry-Deans, R.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Templeton, W. P.


Hills, Major John Waller
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hoare, Lt.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nuttall, Ellis
Tinne, J. A.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Oakley, T.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
pennefather, Sir John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
penny, Frederick George
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstapte)
Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Huntingfield, Lord
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hurd, Percy A.
Philipson, Mabel
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hurst, Gerald B.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carilsle)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wayland, Sir William A.


Iveagh, Countess of
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wells, S. R.


Jackson, sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Preston William
White Lieut.-Col. sir G. Dairymple.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Raine, sir Walter
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ramsden, E.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Remnant, Sir James
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Rentoul, G. S.
Womersley, W. J.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Lamb, J. Q.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanc., Stretford)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Loder, J. de V.
Ropner, Major L.



Long, Major Eric
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Looker, Herbert William
Rye, F. G.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Salmon, Major I.
Major Cope.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lee, F.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Fenby, T. D.
Lindley, F. W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Livingstone, A. M.


Ammon, Charles George
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Lowth, T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gibbins, Joseph
Lunn, William


Baker, Walter
Gosling, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness


Barnes, A.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacLaren, Andrew


Barr, J
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Bondfield, Margaret
Groves, T.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grundy, T. W.
March, S.


Brlant, Frank
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Broad, F. A.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morris, R. H.


Bromfield, William
Hardle, George D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Harney, E. A.
Murnin, H.


Buchanan, G.
Harris, Percy A.
Naylor, T. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hayday, Arthur
Owen, Major G.


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
palin, John Henry


Charleton, H. C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Paling, w.


Clowes, S.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cluse, W. S.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Potts, John S.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Connolly, M.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Riley, Ben


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ritson, J.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Rose, Frank H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, T.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Day, Harry
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Dennison, R.
Lansbury, George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dunnico, H.
Lawrence, Susan
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John James
Shiels, Dr. Drummond




Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Sullivan, J.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Sutton, J. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Smillie, Robert
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Welsh, J. C.


Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wiggins, William Martin


Snell Harry
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Tomlinson, R. P.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Stamford, T. W.
Townend, A. E.
Windsor, Walter


Stephen, Campbell
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wright, W.


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Viant, S. P.



Strauss, E. A.
Wallhead, Richard C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


Bill read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Division No. 34.]
AYES.
[11.1 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Perring, Sir William George


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Albery, Irving James
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Pilcher, G.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Apsley, Lord
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hamilton, Sir George
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Hammersley, S. S.
Preston, William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Price, Major C. W. M.


Balniel, Lord
Harland, A.
Raine, Sir Walter


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Ramsden, E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Betterton, Henry B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley]
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Blundell, F. N.
Hills, Major John Waller
Rye, F. G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D. (St.Marylebone)
Salmon, Major I.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brass, Captain W.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Briggs, J. Harold
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hume, Sir G. H.
Savery, S. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shepperson, E. W.


Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Buckingham, Sir H.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Burman, J. B.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Lamb, J. Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Campbell, E. T.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Carver, Major W. H.
Long, Major Eric
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)
Looker, Herbert William
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Lumley, L. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Clayton, G. C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cockerill, Brig.-General sir George
Macintyre, Ian
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cope, Major William
McLean, Major A.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Couper, J. B.
Macmillan, Captain H,
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Margesson, Captain D.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on Hull)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Merriman, F. B.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Watts, Dr. T.


Drewe, C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wells, S. R.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ellis, R. G.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Nelson, Sir Frank
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fermoy, Lord
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Womersley, W. J.


Fielden, E. B.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Finburgh, S.
Oakley, T.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Ford, Sir P. J.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fraser, Captain Ian
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William



Gates, Percy
Pennefather, Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Penny, Frederick George
Captain Viscount Curzon and Sir


Gower, Sir Robert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Victor Warrender.


Grace, John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Batey, Joseph
Buchanan, G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bondfield, Margaret
Cape, Thomas


Ammon, Charles George
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Charleton, H. C.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Broad, F. A.
Clowes, S.


Baker, Walter
Bromfield, William
Cluse, W. S.


Barr, J.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Connolly, M.




Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kenwortny, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snell, Harry


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Day, Harry
Lee, F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dennison, R.
Lindley, F. W.
Sullivan, Joseph


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Fenby, T. D.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Gibbins, Joseph
Maxton, James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gosling, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.
Townend, A. E.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Naylor, T. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold
Viant, S. P.


Groves, T.
Owen, Major G.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Hardie, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hayes, John Henry
Riley, Ben
Welsh, J. C.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ritson, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hirst, G. H.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall,St. lves)
Whiteley, W.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wiggins, William Martin


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scurr, John
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, James
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wright, W.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)



Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes


Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Question put accordingly "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 127.

Division No. 35.]
AYES.
[11.10p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Harland, A.


Albery, Irving James
Cope, Major William
Harrison, G. J. C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Couper, J. B.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Apsley, Lord
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Henderson,Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Balniel, Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hills Major John Waller


Beamish, Rear- Admiral T. P. H.
Davies Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Dawson Sir Philip
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Betterton, Henry B.
Drewe, C.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'K, Nun.)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster Mossley)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Ellis, R. G.
Howard Bury, Colonel C. K.


Blundell, F. N.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.
Hudson, Capt, A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Con't)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Fermoy, Lord
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Brass, Captain W.
Fielden, E. B.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Briggs, J. Harold
Finburgh, S.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Briscoe, Richard George
Ford, Sir P. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lamb, J. Q.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Little, Dr. E, Graham


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gates, Percy
Long, Major Eric


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Looker, Herbert William


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Burman, J. B.
Grace, John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lumley, L. R.


Campbell, E. T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Carver, Major W. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Maclntyre, Ian


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McLean, Major A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Macmillan, Captain H.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hamilton, Sir George
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Clayton, G. C.
Hammersley, S. S.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Preston, William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Raine, Sir Walter
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Margesson, Captain D.
Ramsden, E.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Thom, Lt.-Col J. G. (Dumbarton)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Merriman, F. B.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'fs'y)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Ropner, Major L.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Rye. F. G.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Salmon, Major I.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nelson, Sir Frank
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Watts, Dr. T.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wells, S. R.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Oakley, T.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Savery, S. S.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew,W)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Pennefather, Sir John
Shepperson, E. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Penny, Frederick George
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Womersley, W. J.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Perring, Sir William George
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.



Pilcher, G.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.
Captain Viscount Curzon and Sir


Power, Sir John Cecil
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Victor Warrender.


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry
Sexton, James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H,
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair Major sir A. (Caithness)


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barnes, A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smillie, Robert


Barr, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stamford, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Charleton, H. C.
Lunsbury, George
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Clowes, S.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Townend, A. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
March, S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Harry
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Dennison, R.
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
Morris, R. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dunnico, H.
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Fenby, T. D.
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Owen, Major G.
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Wiggins, William Martin


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Ritson, J.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall,St.Ives)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



Hardie, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH GUIANA BILL.

Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. AMMON: I regret, at this late hour, to detain the House, but the matter is of such vital importance that I feel this Bill ought not to receive a Third Reading unchallenged. We are here faced with a position in regard to Colonial government, almost precisely the same as that which we have just been discussing in regard to municipal government. Here, again, the Government propose to take a retrogressive step, with regard to the rights of elected representatives. As has been said, it would seem that this Government are trying to destroy all the rights that have been built up during centuries—the rights of government by the representatives of the people. There are two points which I desire to raise which were not before the House on the Second Reading. The first is the denial of the Government that help could have been given to this Colony by means of the Colonial Stocks Act. Since the last discussion I have fortified myself with a copy of the Treasury Order of 6th December, 1900, dealing with Colonial stocks, and it states there:
The Colony shall provide by legislation for the payment out of the revenue of the Colony of any sum which may become payable to stockholders under any judgment, decree, rule or order of a Court in the United Kingdom. The Colony shall satisfy the Treasury that adequate funds as and when required will be made available in the United Kingdom to meet any such judgment, decree, rule or order.
I suggest that if there was the slightest intention on the part of the Government to give the elected representatives in this Colony a fair chance, and if there was the slightest good will, there is nothing in these Regulations issued by the Treasury which cannot be fulfilled by the Colony. It has been said that there is a large deficit of over £600,000 in the aggregate, spread over a period of seven years. It has been admitted that the Colony is potentially one of the richest in the British Dominions. Therefore, it is simply a matter of some little attention and care, with a little good will, and we can assist the people to get over these difficulties and to work out their own salva-
tion.Democratic government carries with it certain risks, and there are bound to be certain mistakes during the initial stages of its development. The history of our own Constitution tells us that, and this Mother of Parliaments ought not to take away from this Colony the right of self-government which it has enjoyed for about 130 years. That would be a blot on our national scutcheon. Since the last discussion, I have received a communication from the Colony—to which I hope the House will give better attention than it seems inclined to do at present. It is quite probable that the Colonial Office have had some inkling of the statements which are now rife in the Colony. These are statements to the effect that the Government have been influenced against the elected members and against democratic control in that Colony by certain financial interests and certain people who have a desire to get rid of democratic government in order to batten on the resources and concessions in that country.
A telegram has been sent saying that the colonists deeply resent any such aspersions on their loyalty to the British Government, and that they are astounded that the British Government have determined to change their Constitution without the people's consent and without their being consulted. They further point to a precedent created with regard to Jamaica in 1839, when a somewhat similar position arose under Lord Melbourne's Government. On that occasion, however, instead of taking the step that this Government propose to take, they decided to trust the people a little longer in order that they might work out their own salvation, and they trust that that action was justified so far as Jamaica was concerned. British Guiana is not very far removed geographically from Jamaica, and it would be a tremendous mistake if we acted in the way proposed in this Bill. The telegram further points out that the local Constitution Commission was, so they say, a packed tribunal. It consisted of four Government officials, one executive councillor and only two representatives of the people, and all were appointed by the Government. They claim that the recommendations are not expressive of the will of the people and not warranted by the evidence given before the Commission.
I think it is necessary both for the protection of the colonists and the satisfaction of the British public that the Government should, at least, be able to give a categorical denial to the statements that are running in the Colony. Evidently they think, with good foundation, that it is financial interests that are mainly concerned; that the Government have been influenced by those interests and are taking this step on behalf of interests mostly financed from American sources. I am willing to hand this telegram to the Under-Secretary of State. The only other point I would make before the Bill passes through its final stage is, that I hope it is not too late, even now, to consider some method whereby the right of the people to their representatives can still be maintained in the Colony. I think that at least the elected members of the Legislative Assembly should be taken into the executive body of the Government and contact with the people maintained. It would not be right for any hon. Member in this House, irrespective of party, who still holds a belief in democratic government and Parliamentary institutions, to allow this Bill to go through without at least challenging it in the Division Lobby.

Mr. ROYWILSON: I should not have spoken at this late hour had not the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) brought to the notice of the House what he states is a rumour which is rife in the Colony to the effect that financial influences, particularly from American sources, have induced the Government to bring in this Bill to alter the Constitution of the Colony. All that I want to say, on behalf of my colleague the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) and myself, who were the Commission that visited British Guiana in 1926, is that so far as we are concerned there is not the faintest shadow of support for any contention of that sort. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies last week, when he introduced this Bill, told the House that it was based on the Report of the British Guiana Commission, and I should like to say quite definitely and as strongly as I can in this House that my colleague and myself went out to British Guiana with entirely and completely open minds. We had no instructions or suggestions from
anybody. We took the position as we saw it.
We presented our report to the Secretary of State for the Colonies after most careful consideration; and as far as I am concerned—and I am sure I am speaking on behalf of my colleague—I can say without reservation that to suggest that financial interests were at the back of our recommendations, is completely untrue. As far as American financial influence is concerned, it certainly is my wish—and I am sure it is his—that if and when British Guiana is able to control her own financial policy through her own Government on the spot, it is British finance that we hope will be forthcoming for that Colony—finance supplied from this end by Britishers, so that the influence in that Colony shall be entirely and completely British as it ought to be in all Colonies under the control of the British Empire. I hope I have made it quite clear to the House that we dissociate ourselves entirely and completely from any rumour of the sort suggested. It has no foundation in fact, and I hope the short statement I have made will be as widely reported in the Press, both of that Colony and here as is possible.

Miss WILKINSON: Those of us who have heard both the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) will agree that, so far as the Commission is concerned, their work was done with the utmost conscientiousness. I have had a deputation to see me recently on this matter, and there are certain questions that I have been asked to put to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. It seems to some of us that this question of British Guiana is of a piece with the general Colonial policy of the Government. Some of us feel profoundly perturbed as to what is really behind the policy of the Government at this moment in coming forward to disturb this Constitution which has lasted for 130 years. Obviously, the Under-Secretary, as the Commission does, can point to corruption and inefficiency of the present small number of registered voters with a high property qualification and with a high direct taxation qualification, who in fact control the administration of this Colony.
It is not a democracy of that kind that either my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench or any other Member on this side is thinking about. The question is what is going to be the effect on the native population, and what is the policy behind the Government in taking the whole of the administration of this Colony out of their hands? If there were a situation such as existed in Kenya, where the local population is being mercilessly exploited by the planters, we should gladly welcome it if an enlightened Government decided that the native interests were to be protected, but we find this Government, which is so anxious to bestow upon Kenya self-government, is proposing the opposite policy in British Guiana. We want to know why?
There is the position in British Guiana. There is a total population of 300,000, or about half the population of a town like Sheffield, in a territory about the size of England. Of that number, no less than 124,000 are East Indians. The greater proportion are brought to British Guiana under a system of indentured labour. In 1922, when a large number of the contracts of these indentured labourers expired, not one of the men was returned. We want to know why, and whether they have been returned since, and, if so, how many of them What is the policy of the Government towards this indentured labour? The conditions are so notoriously bad that I have been informed by a deputation which called on me that the Government of India has expressed its unwillingness to allow more indentured labour to go to British Guiana. Obviously I am not speaking from first-hand information, but from information supplied to me by people who have—[Interruption]—I have not been to British Guiana, nor, I gather, have the great majority of the Members of this House.

Mr. ALBERY: Will the hon. Member say what deputation has been to see her?

Miss WILKINSON: It consisted of natives—of people who have been in British Guiana and have brought certain facts before me, and I want to know the position.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Will the hon. Member say what natives she is referring to—are they aboriginal natives?

Miss WILKINSON: Certainly not. I do not suppose there are any aboriginal natives of British Guiana at present floating round London. The people who are concerned in the matter are the Hindus—the Indians.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: An Indian deputation?

Miss WILKINSON: Yes.

Mr. ALBERY: From British Guiana?

Miss WILKINSON: I am so sorry if I have not made myself plain to the hon. Member. Perhaps I had better repeat it in words of one syllable.

Mr. ALBERY: I really only wished to acquire information. The hon. Member said a deputation had been to see her. All I want to know is whether the deputation was from British Guiana and, if so, what deputation it was?

Miss WILKINSON: The deputation which has been to see me consists of Indians who are concerned about the conditions——[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—of Indians in British Guiana who have first-hand knowledge of the situation. I only wish to make it clear that I myself have not visited British Guiana.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Has the deputation come from British Guiana?

Miss WILKINSON: The gentlemen who came to see me are particularly interested in and concerned about the welfare of indentured Indian labour in British Guiana. They have first-hand knowledge of the conditions there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Have they been there?"] One of them, at least, has been there. A large number of Members, like the Under-Secretary earlier in the Debate, make large statements about things they know nothing whatever about, but I have taken the trouble to find out. Perhaps it is unusual for an hon. Member of this House to get up and endeavour, with the greatest clearness, to make it perfectly plain where she has obtained her information. It would be possible to talk at large about
British Guiana; but I have no desire to do that. I now hope that hon. Members who are spending so much of their time interrupting will allow me to go on. What I want to know is whether the Under-Secretary can give us any information as to the conditions of this indentured labour, and whether he can give me any undertaking on behalf of the Government that under the new Constitution the rights of these natives will be safeguarded? At present, these people have no right to vote at all unless they have the property qualification that would enable them to join the 6,000 people on the list of registered voters. The people on that list are the only voters who have a right to elect members of the joint committee or any of their representatives. If the Under-Secretary can assure me that a large number of indentured Hindus ever reach that high qualification I shall be pleased to know it, because my information is to the contrary. It seems to me that if the Under-Secretary is really concerned about the democratic development of the Colony, what he should do is to extend the franchise so that all the persons concerned may have some voice in the matter. The revelations in regard to the treatment of indentured labour in Kenya and British Guiana constitute part of the cause of the unrest existing in India at the present time. The Indians are of the opinion that they do not get a fair deal. They allege that their indenture contracts are not carried out, and that they are shamefully treated. It seems to me that before we adopt a new Constitution like this for British Guiana we should receive more information than that which has been given to us by the Colonial Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am afraid that the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) is labouring under a good many misapprehensions. It is six or seven years since I was in British Guiana, and at that time there was no indentured labour there at all, and there certainly is none there now. As a matter of fact, every East Indian who wishes to return to India is at liberty to do so. A large majority of the East Indians have settled in Guiana. Some of them are labourers, but a number of them are workmen and artisans employed in the
various activities of the Colony. A very large proportion of these workers are employed in the rice industry, and they have settled in the Colony. The East Indian, the aborigines, the Africans, the Chinese, and the people of mixed races all have votes exactly on the same terms. By far the larger proportion are Africans. It has been proved that a large proportion of the East Indian community have not taken the precaution of putting themselves on the register, and I trust that they will do so. I hope that every effort will be made to get more Indian peasant proprietors to place themselves on the register in order that they may take part in the government of the Colony They are perfectly entitled to do so; there is no racial bar. I am glad to say that, under the proposed Order in Council, which will be passed when this Bill comes into operation, there will be a certain lowering of the franchise. Personally, I am glad to say that, and I would go further and say that, if there is one thing that the existing elected Members seem anxious to avoid, it is a further extension of the franchise. Therefore, this cannot be said to be a reactionary step. Indeed, I hope it is going to be one of the first steps in the direction of a more democratic form of government, replacing an obsolete 18th century Constitution which has been unchanged and unchangeable for 130 years. The hon. Member seemed to think that there were something like 6,000 or 7,000 sugar planters in British Guiana. Let me assure her that, if there are 100, that is as many as there are.

Miss WILKINSON: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I said that there were 6,000 registered voters, and I said that the power was in the hands of the sugar planters. I did not suggest that there were 6,000 sugar planters.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think there is a single sugar planter who would admit that the power was in his hands. So far as I know, there is only one Member either of the Court of Policy or of the Combined Court who is in any way connected with the sugar industry. I am not sure whether even he is a sugar planter now, but at any rate he was. One of the complaints, indeed, has been that the sugar industry has practically no
representation of any kind in the councils of the Colony. With regard to what has been said about the effect on India, it is certainly not the policy of the Government, and there is no intention at all, to re-start the indenture system. It was abolished long ago. As to the question of sanitary conditions, I quite agree that, owing to the fact that the Government of the Colony has never had the power to govern, the sanitary conditions in British Guiana are greatly in need of reform, and one of the first steps to be taken under these proposals, which will conduce to some continuity of policy, will be, I hope, to do something to improve the sanitary conditions in the Colony.
I will now turn from the hon. Member's inquiries, which were quite fair and which I think I have answered, to the points raised by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). His first point was in regard to Colonial stocks. I might, perhaps, inform the House that British Guiana is neither a country possessing full self-government—that is to say, responsible government, as in the case of one of the Dominions—which it has never had, nor a Colony where the ultimate control is vested in the Secretary of State responsible to this House, and the object of this reserve power is to enable it to be made perfectly clear, on the face of any prospectus issued by the Crown Agents on the London market for the public loans of British Guiana, that the Secretary of State for the Colonies and this House have an ultimate power to secure all the services of such a loan. Such a reserve power is in existence in Jamaica and Ceylon, where there are unofficial majorities, and it is absolutely essential for security. It is a great advantage to British Colonies, in that it enables them to raise their public loans under the Colonial Stocks Act, which means that they are trustee securities, and can be raised at a far lower charge to the taxpayers of those Colonies, and are therefore far more helpful to their development than if there were no such power.
I come to the next point raised. I too have seen the telegram to which the hon. Member referred. It would appear that one of the elected members of British
Guiana who has been over here in the last few weeks has sent to one of the other elected members an account in which it is suggested that the Government had given as a ground for a change of the constitution something to do with American capital—it is not quite clear exactly what he said—and an attitude of disloyalty. The two Government spokesmen were the Secretary of State and myself, and in both cases we made no charge against any of the elected members. We rather went out of our way to acquit them of any responsibility for the breakdown in government which was revealed by the Commission under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson). We made it quite clear in our speeches that the reason for the change was that the system was a bad one and that some change should be made. There was no suggestion of disloyalty or of financial influence, American or otherwise. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Lichfield said what he did in that connection here to-night. I can give a most frank repudiation. As a matter of fact, though it is true that successive Governors for some time past have raised the question of possible changes in the constitution with successive Secretaries of State, it was not until my right hon. Friend received the Report of the recent Parliamentary Commission which went out there that he decided that the time for a change had come. We decided that a change must be made when we got that Report. My right hon. Friend decided that a change in the Constitution was necessary, and he adopted the course recommended by the Commission in referring the matter to a local commission. Whatever the form of Constitution set up, there would have been criticisms by persons hostile to any change at all. But there was no decision taken before the Commission went out. They recommended a change and a local commission as to the form it should take. It has been carried out step by step in the most constitutional manner.
As to this change, the hon. Member for North Camberwell said that the Jamaica precedent should be examined. As far as I recollect, there was power in the Jamaica Constitution, granted in the 17th century, to alter the Constitution.
There is no power in British Guiana to alter the Constitution. Neither the Court of Policy nor the Combined Court can alter the Constitution. There is only one possible authority which can alter it, and that is the Imperial Parliament. The Secretary of State cannot alter a jot or tittle of this ancient Constitution which is 130 years old. We are in an absolute cul-de-sac until an Act of Parliament puts British Guiana in the same position as the Gold Coast or Nigeria or any other colony. It is true that Jamaica had a Constitution in the old days not without features analogous to the Constitution of British Guiana, but in practice they did away with this and the Crown resumed control. Since the Crown resumed control, the Crown has from time to time made certain alteration by Order-in-Council in the Constitution. They have the type of Constitution which will be very simple, the type that it is proposed to give now to British Guiana. I think that answers that point.
Then, finally, the hon. Member raised the question of the relations of the unofficial majority, partly elected and partly nominated, with the future executive. He realises, as the Commission realised, that one of the fundamental vices of the British Guiana Constitution is that in practice it inevitably makes all the elected members into an Opposition and the Government purely official. That is the form of the Constitution that we wish to change. He attaches importance to bringing members of the Legislature into the Executive Council, the proposed new governing authority.

That is my right hon. Friend's intention, that every member of the new Executive Council under the reformed Constitution shall be a member of the new Legislative Council, and that the executive shall be composed partly of officials who are members of the Legislative Council, partly of nominated unofficials, and partly of elected members, It is his intention to get away from what is essentially an obsolete form of government into a form of government that can be progressive. Under the new Constitution, every single item, other than the small Civil List, is subject to an annual vote. There can now be no continuity in the Consolidated Fund for the service of the debt. It is beyond the power of the existing Government to do that. A change in the Constitution is essential if that is to be done. The actual form of the Order in Council will be mainly in accordance with the recommendations of the local Commission and will be laid on the Table as soon as it is drafted after the Bill has received the Royal Assent. I now ask the House to give a Third Reading to a Bill which, I can assure hon. Members, is not only necessary in the interest of the progress. and happiness of all sections of the population, but is absolutely essential if British Guiana is to develop any real form of self-government and of democratic institutions in the future.

Question put, "That the Bill he now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 70.

Division No. 36.]
AYES.
[12.0 m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Briscoe, Richard George
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies,Maj.Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil),


Albery, Irving James
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Drewe, C.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Apsley, Lord
Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Ellis, R. G.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Burman, J. B.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Campbell, E. T.
Fenby, T. D.


Balniel, Lord
Carver, Major W. H.
Fermoy, Lord


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Finburgh. S.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Clayton, G. C.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fraser, Captain Ian


Betterton, Henry B.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Ganzoni, Sir John


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Couper, J. B.
Gates, Percy


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gower, Sir Robert


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Grace, John


Blundell, F N.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Brass, Captain W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Grotrian, H. Brent


Briggs, J. Harold
Dalkeith, Earl of
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Margesson, Captain D.
Smith-Carington, Neville w.


Hamilton, Sir George
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smithers, Waldron


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Merriman, F. B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Harland, A.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Harris, Percy A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'land)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hendenon, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Oakley, T.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hills, Major John Waller
Owen, Major G.
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St.Marylebone)
Penny, Frederick George
Tomlinson, R. P.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hope, Capt. A. O, J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Pilcher, G.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandswortn, Cen'l)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Preston, William
Watts, Dr. T.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Raine, Sir Walter
Wells, S. R.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Ramsden, E.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wiggins, William Martin


Knox, Sir Alfred
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Lamb, J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Long, Major Eric
Salmon, Major I.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Looker, Herbert William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Womersley, W. J.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Lumley, L. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.



Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Savery, S. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Macintyre, Ian
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Major Cope and Mr. Frederick


McLean, Major A.
Shepperson, E. W.
Thomson.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bondfield, Margaret
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T
Sullivan, J.


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Clowes, S.
Lawrence, Susan
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Day, Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Welsh, J. C.


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, J. P.
Murnin, H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Mr. parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.


Grundy, T. W.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport

under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Mutford and Lothingland and Blything, in the administrative county of East Suffolk, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1928, be approved."

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport
under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919. in respect of parts of the rural districts of Tetbury, Cirencester, Chipping Sodbury, and Thornbury, in the county of Gloucester, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Amesbury, in the rural district of Amesbury, in the county of Wilts, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Buckley, in the county of Flint, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Northallerton and part of the rural district of Northallerton, in the North Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and
confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Romsey, the rural districts of Romsey and New Forest, and part of the rural district of Lymington, in the county of Southampton, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Thornbury, in the county of Gloucester, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1928, be approved."—[Colonel Ashley.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICES (SITES) BILL.

Mr. Ammon, Mr. Briant, Captain Fraser, and Mr. Ramsden nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Post Office (Sites) Bill.—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon, Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nine Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.

Hilda Runciman, for the County of Cornwall (St. Ives Division).

Frank Kingsley Griffith, esquire, for the Borough of Middlesbrough (West Division).

Mr. MORRIS: In view of the great accession to the strength of the Liberal party——

Mr. SPEAKER: The time for those points is not now.

POLICE (WIDOWS' PENSION AMENDMENT) BILL,

"to amend section three (a) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, so as to include in its benefit the widows of police pensioners who finally retired from the police force on or prior to the first day of September, nineteen hundred and eighteen," presented by Sir James Remnant; supported by Mr. Hayes, Sir Basil Peto, Mr. Hore-Belisha, Mr. William Thorne, Sir John Pennefather, Sir Robert Newman, and Sir Frederick Hall; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

BRIDGES (IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE) BILL.

Order for Second Reading upon Friday read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committe A: Mr. Viant; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Riley.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Lieut.-Colonel Horlick; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Wilfrid Sugden.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Petroleum (Amendment) Bill): Lord Apsley, Sir Robert Bird, Mr. Brocklebank, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Hardie, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson, Major Hills, Mr. Haydn Jones, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, and Mr. Waddington.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.